DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 426 907
SE 062 201
TITLE
NAEP 1992 Mathematics State Report for the Virgin Islands.
The Trial State Assessment Program.
INSTITUTION
National Assessment of Educational Progress,
Princeton, NJ.;
Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ. Center for the
Assessment of Educational Progress.
SPONS AGENCY
National Center for Education Statistics (ED),
Washington,
DC
REPORT NO
NAEP-23-STO1
ISBN
ISBN-0-88685-140-8
PUB DATE
1993-04-00
NOTE
187p.; For the entire report covering
the nation and the
states, see ED 360 190. For the 44 separate
reports for 41
states, District of Columbia, Guam, and the
Virgin Islands,
see SE 062 158-200.
PUB TYPE
Numerical/Quantitative Data (110) -- Reports
Research
(143)
EDRS PRICE
MF01/PC08 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS
Algebra; Calculators; Elementary Education;
Estimation
(Mathematics); Family Environment; Functions
(Mathematics);
Geometry; *Grade 8; Homework; *Mathematics Achievement;
Mathematics Education; Measurement; *National Competency
Tests; Number Concepts; Probability;
Problem Solving; Public
Schools; *Standardized Tests; Standards;
Statistics;
*Student Evaluation; Tables (Data); Test Results
IDENTIFIERS
National Assessment of Educational Progress; State
Mathematics Assessments; Trial State Assessment
(NAEP);
*Virgin Islands
ABSTRACT
In 1990, the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) included a Trial State Assessment which,
for the first time in the
NAEP's history, made voluntary state-by-state assessments. This 1992
mathematics report marks the first attempt of the National Center for
Education Statistics to shift to standards-based reporting of National
Assessment statistics. NAEP results are reported by achievement levels which
are descriptions of how students
should perform relative to a body of content
reflected in the NAEP frameworks; in other words, how much students should
know. The 1992 assessment covered six mathematics
content areas:
(1) numbers
and operations;
(2) measurement;
(3) geometry;
(4) data analysis, statistics,
and probability;
(5) algebra and functions; and (6) estimation. In the Virgin
Islands, 1,479 eighth-grade students in 6 public
schools were assessed. This
report describes the mathematics performance
of the Virgin Islands
eighth-grade students in public schools and compares
their overall
performance to students in the nation. The
distribution of the results are
provided for subpopulations of students including race/ethnicity; type of
community--advantaged/disadvantaged urban, extreme rural, and other; parents'
education level; gender; and content area performance.
To provide a context
for understanding students' mathematics proficiency, students, their
mathematics teachers, and principals completed questionnaires which focused
on: what are students taught?
(curriculum coverage, homework, and
instructional emphasis); how is mathematics instruction delivered?
(resources, collaborating in small groups, using mathematical objects, and
+++++ ED426907 Has Multi-page SFR---Level=1 +++++
materials); how are calculators and computers used?
(access and use of
calculators, availability of computers, and when to use a
calculator); who is
teaching mathematics? (educational background); and conditions beyond school
that facilitate mathematics learning and teaching
(amount of reading
materials in the home, hours of television watched per day, student
absenteeism, and students' perceptions of mathematics) .
The average
proficiency of eighth-grade students in the Virgin Islands on the NAEP
mathematics scale was 222 compared to 266 nationwide.
(ASK)
********************************************************************************
*
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
*
*
from the original document.
*
********************************************************************************
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS
NAEP 1992
Mathematics State Report for
0,0
the Virgin Islands
The Trial State Assessment Program
U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
E UCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
Th
ocument has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it
O Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in this
document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy.
EST COPY AVAILA5LE
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
Prepared by Educational Testing Service under cimtracI
With the Nathmal Center for Education Statistics.
Office of Educational Research and linprovement
U.S. Department of Education
What is The Nation's Report Card?
THE NATION'S REPORT CARD, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), is the only nationally representative and continuing assessment
of what America's students know and can do in various subject areas. Since 1969, assessments have been conducted periodically in reading, mathematics,
science, writing, history/geography, and other fields. By making objective information on student performance available to policymakers at the national,
state, and local levels, NAEP is an integral part of our nation's evaluation of the condition and progress of education. Only information related to academic
achievement is collected under this program. NAEP guarantees the privacy of individual students and their families.
NAEP is a congressionally mandated project of the National Center for Education Statistics, the U.S. Department of Education. The Commissioner of
Education Statistics is responsible, by law, for carrying out the NAEP project through competitive awards to qualified organizations. NAEP reports directly
to the Commissioner, who is also responsible for providing continuing reviews, including validation studies and solicitation of public comment, on NAEP's
conduct and usefulness.
In 1988, Congress created the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) to formulate policy guidelines for NAEP. The board is responsible for
selecting the subject areas to be assessed, which may include adding to those specified by Congress; identifying appropriate achievement goals for each age
and grade; developing assessment objectives; developing test specifications; designing the assessment methodology; developing guidelines and standards
for data analysis and for reporting and disseminating results; developing standards and procedures for interstate, regional, and national comparisons; improving
the form and use of the National Assessment; and ensuring that all items selected for use in the National Assessment are free from racial, cultural, gender,
or regional bias.
The National Assessment Governing Board
Mark D. Musick, Chairman
President
Southern Regional Education Board
Atlanta, Georgia
Hon. William T. Randall, Vice Chair
Commissioner of Education
State Department of Education
Denver, Colorado
Parris C. Battle
Education Specialist
Dade County Public Schools
Miami, Florida
Honorable Evan Bayh
Governor of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Mary R. Blanton
Attorney
Blanton & Blanton
Salisbury, North Carolina
Boyd W. Boehlje
Attorney and School Board Member
Pella, Iowa
Linda R. Bryant
Dean of Students
Florence Reizenstein Middle School
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Naomi K. Cohen
Office of Policy and Management
State of Connecticut
Hartford, Connecticut
Charlotte Crabtree
Professor
University of California
Los Angeles, California
Chester E. Finn, Jr.
Founding Partner and Senior Scholar
The Edison Project
Washington, DC
Michael S. Glode
Wyoming State Board of Education
Saratoga, Wyoming
William Hume
Chairman of the Board
Basic American, Inc.
San Francisco, California
Christine Johnson
Director of K-12 Education
Littleton Public Schools
Littleton, Colorado
John S. Lindley
Principal
Galloway Elementary School
Henderson, Nevada
Honorable Stephen E. Merrill
Governor of New Hampshire
Concord, New Hampshire
Jason Millman
Professor
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
Honorable Richard P. Mills
Commissioner of Education
State Department of Education
Montpelier, Vermont
Carl J. Moser
Director of Schools
The Lutheran Church
Missouri Synod
St. Louis, Missouri
John A. Murphy
Superintendent of Schools
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Charlotte, North Carolina
Michael T. Nettles
Professor
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Honorable Carolyn Pollan
Arkansas House of Representatives
Fort Smith, Arkansas
Thomas Topuzes
Senior Vice President
Valley Independent Bank
El Centro, California
Marilyn Whirry
English Teacher
Mira Costa High School
Manhattan Beach, California
Emerson J. Elliott
Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational
Research and Improvement (Ex-Officio)
U.S. Department of Education
Washington, D.C.
Roy Truby
Executive Director, NAGB
Washington, D.C.
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS
NAEP 1992
Mathematics State Report for
the Virgin Islands
The Trial State Assessment Program
Report No. 23-STO1
April 1993
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
Prepared by Educational Testing Service under contract
with the National Center for Education Statistics
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
U.S. Department of Education
U.S. Department of Education
Richard W. Riley
Secretary
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
Emerson J. Elliott
Acting Assistant Secretary
National Center for Education Statistics
Emerson J. Elliott
Commissioner
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
For ordering information on this report, write:
Education Information Branch
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
U.S. Department of Education
555 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20208-5641
or call 1-800-424-1616 (in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area call 202-219-1651).
Library of Congress, Catalog Card Number: 93-83074
ISBN: 0-88685-140-8
The work upon which this publication is based was performed for the National Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research
and Improvement, by Educational Testing Service.
Educational Testing Service is an equal opportunity, affirmative action employer.
Educational Testing Service, ETS, and the ETS logo are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service.
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
,
5
OVERVIEW
13
This Report
15
Guidelines for Analysis and Reporting
17
Profile of the Virgin Islands
18
Eighth-Grade School and Student Characteristics
18
Schools and Students Assessed
18
PART ONE
How Proficient in Mathematics are Eighth-Grade Students
in Virgin Islands Public Schools9
21
Chapter 1. Students' Mathematics Performance
22
Levels of Mathematics Achievement
24
Content Area Performance
31
Chapter 2. Mathematics Performance by Subpopulations
34
Race/Ethnicity
34
Type of Community
37
Parents' Education Level
39
Gender
44
Content Area Performance
47
6
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
i
PART TWO
Finding a Context for Understanding Students'
Mathematics Proficiency
53
Chapter 3. What Are Students Taught in Mathematics?
55
Curriculum Coverage
56
Mathematics Homework
58
Instructional Emphasis
61
Summary
63
Chapter 4. How Is Mathematics Instruction Delivered?
64
Resources
64
Collaborating in Small Groups
66
Using Mathematical Objects
67
Materials for Mathematics Instruction
68
Summary
72
Chapter 5. How Are Calculators and Computers Used?
73
Access and Use of Calculators
73
The Availability of Computers
76
When to Use a Calculator
78
Summary
80
Chapter 6. Who Is Teaching Eighth-Grade Mathematics?
82
Educational Background
84
Summary
86
Chapter 7. The Conditions Beyond School that Facilitate
Mathematics Learning and Teaching
88
Amount of Reading Materials in the Home
88
Hours of Television Watched Per Day
90
Student Absenteeism
92
Students' Perceptions Of Mathematics
93
Summary
95
PROCEDURAL APPENDIX
97
ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS APPENDIX
115
SCALE ANCHORING APPENDIX
119
DATA APPENDIX
125
ii
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
List of Tables
Table 1.
Profile of Public-School Students in the Virgin Islands and the Nation
19
Table 2.
Profile of the Population Assessed in the Virgin Islands
20
Table 3A.
Average Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics Proficiency
22
Table 3B.
Percentiles of Mathematics Proficiency in Eighth-Grade Public Schools
23
Table 4.
Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics Achievement
29
Table 5A.
Eighth-Grade Public-School Content Area Performance
32
Table 5B.
Percentiles of Mathematics Proficiency in Eighth-Grade Public Schools by
Content Area
33
Table 6A.
Average Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics Proficiency by
Race/Ethnicity
35
Table 6B.
Percentiles of Mathematics Proficiency in Eighth-Grade Public Schools by
Race/Ethnicity
35
Table 7.
Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics Achievement by
Race/Ethnicity
36
Table 8A.
Average Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics Proficiency by
Type of Community
37
Table 8B.
Percentiles of Mathematics Proficiency in Eighth-Grade Public Schools by
Type of Community
38
Table 9.
Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics Achievement by
Type of Community
39
Table 10A.
Average Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics Proficiency by
Parents' Education
40
Table 10B.
Percentiles of Mathematics Proficiency in Eighth-Grade Public Schools by
Parents' Education
41
Table 11.
Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics Achievement by
Parent's Education
43
Table 12A.
Average Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics Proficiency by Gender
44
Table 12B.
Percentiles of Mathematics Proficiency in Eighth-Grade Public Schools by Gender
45
Table 13.
Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics Achievement by Gender
46
Table 14A.
Eighth-Grade Public-School Performance in Numbers and Operations
47
Table 14B.
Eighth-Grade Public-School Performance in Measurement
48
Table 14C.
Eighth-Grade Public-School Performance in Geometry
49
Table 14D.
Eighth-Grade Public-School Performance in Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability
50
Table 14E.
Eighth-Grade Public-School Performance in Algebra and Functions
51
Table 14F.
Eighth-Grade Public-School Performance in Estimation
52
Table 15.
Mathematics Policies and Practices in Virgin Islands Eighth-Grade Public Schools
56
Table 16.
Eighth-Grade Students' Reports on the Mathematics Class They Are Taking
58
Table 17.
Teachers' and Students' Reports on the Amount of Time Students Spent on
Homework Each Day
60
Table 18.
Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given to Specific Mathematics Content Areas
62
Table 19.
Teachers' Reports on the Availability of Resources
65
Table 20.
Teachers' and Students' Reports on the Frequency of Small-Group Work
67
Table 21.
Teachers' and Students' Reports on the Use of Mathematical Objects
68
Table 22.
Teachers' and Students' Reports on the Frequency of Mathematics Textbook Use . . .
70
Table 23.
Teachers' and Students' Reports on the Frequency of Mathematics Worksheet Use . .
71
Table 24.
Teachers' Reports on Policies about Calculator Use
74
Table 25.
Teachers' and Students' Reports on the Frequency of Calculator Use
75
8
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
ill
Table 26.
Teachers' Reports on the Availability and Primary Use of Computers in
Mathematics Classrooms
77
Table 27.
Teachers' and Students' Reports on the Frequency of Computer Use in
Mathematics Classrooms
78
Table 28.
Students' Knowledge of Using Calculators
80
Table 29.
Profile of Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics Teachers
83
Table 30.
Teachers' Reports on Their Undergraduate and Graduate Fields of Study
85
Table 31.
Teachers' Reports on Their In-Service Training
86
Table 32.
Students' Reports on Types of Reading Materials in the Home
89
Table 33.
Students' Reports on the Amount of Time Spent Watching Television Each Day
91
Table 34.
Eighth-Grade Students' Reports on the Number of Days of School Missed
92
Table 35.
Students' Perceptions of Mathematics
94
Table Al.
Student Score-Level Percentages for Constructed-Response Example Items
101
Table Sl.
Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics Proficiency
122
List of Figures
Figure 1.
Levels of Mathematics Achievement
26
Figure Al.
Contents Areas Assessed
99
Figure A2.
Mathematical Abilities
100
Figure Ll.
Cutpoints for Achievement Levels
116
Figure Sl.
Levels of Mathematics Proficiency
120
9
iv
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Virgin Islands
INTRODUCTION
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Trial State Assessment
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is a Congressionally mandated project of the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) that has collected and reported information for nearly 25
years on what American students know and what they can do.
It is the nation's only ongoing, comparable,
and representative assessment of student achievement. Its tests are given to scientific samples of youths
attending both public and private schools and enrolled in grades four, eight, or twelve. The test items are
written around a framework prepared for each content area -- reading, writing, mathematics, science, and
others -- that represents the consensus of groups of curriculum experts, educators, members of the general
public, and user groups on what should be covered on such a test. Reporting includes means and
distributions of scores, as well as more descriptive information about the meaning of different points on the
NAEP scale.
A Recent History of NAEP Reporting
Over time there have been many changes in emphasis of NAEP testing and reporting both to take
advantage of new technologies and to reflect changing trends in education. In 1985, a new technology
called Item Response Theory (IRT) made it possible to create "scale scores" for NAEP similar to those the
public was accustomed to seeing for the annual Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT). Educational Testing
Service, in its role as Government grantee carrying out NAEP operations, devised a new way to describe
performance against this scale, called "anchor levels." Starting in 1984, NAEP results were reported by
"anchor levels." Anchor levels describe distributions of performance at selected points along the NAEP
scale (i.e., standard deviation units). Anchor levels show how groups of students perform relative to each
other, but not whether this performance is adequate.
In 1988, Congress authorized a new aspect of NAEP that allowed states and territories to participate
voluntarily in a trial state assessment, using samples representative of their own students, to provide state-
level data comparable to the nation and each of the other participating jurisdictions. Pursuant to that law,
in 1990, the mathematics achievement of eighth graders was assessed in 40 jurisdictions (states, territories,
and the District of Columbia). The results were reported in The State of Mathematics Achievement:
NAEP's 1990 Assessment of the Nation and the Trial Assessment of the States (Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics, 1991).
In the same 1988 law, Congress established the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), assigning it
broad policy-making authority over NAEP, including the authority to take "appropriate actions .
. . to
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
1
Irugin Islands
improve the form and use of the National Assessment" and to identify "appropriate achievement goals for
each . . . grade and subject area to be tested in the National Assessment." To carry out its responsibilities,
NAGB developed achievement levels, which are collective judgments about how students should perform,
translated into ranges along the NAEP scale. The process was conducted for NAGB under contract by
American College Testing (ACT), which has extensive experience in standard-setting in many fields. The
standards setting process began with questions such as, "What should students know and be able to do if
they are proficient in mathematics in the fourth, eighth, or twelfth grade?" The National Assessment
Governing Board, after wide consultation including public hearings, developed statements to describe what
students should know and be able to do at three levels of proficiency -- "Basic," "Proficient," and "Advanced"
for each of the three NAEP grades. A panel of expert and broadly representative judges evaluated each
NAEP item, judged the proportion of students at each level which should answer the items correctly, and
made recommendations that resulted in points along the NAEP scale that corresponded with the minimum
score for each of these levels.
In 1990, after Congress had mandated pilot testing at the State level to supplement what had only been
conducted for the nation and four large regions, the more rigorous content of the mathematics standards
prepared by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics began to influence the NAEP frameworks.
Also in 1990, the President and the nation's 50 governors adopted six National Education Goals, including
one that calls for American students to "leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency in
challenging subject matter, including English, mathematics, science, history, and geography." The adoption
of this goal highlighted a perceived deficiency in the Nation's ability to report on the performance of
students relative to standards developed through a consensus process.
A Transition Phase in Reporting
This 1992 mathematics report marks NCES's first attempt to shift to standards-based reporting of National
Assessment statistics. The transition is being made now to report NAEP results by "achievement levels."
Achievement levels describe how students should perform relative to a body of content reflected in the
NAEP frameworks (i.e., how much students should know). The impetus for this shift lies in the belief that
NAEP data will take on more meaning for the public if they show what proportion of our youth are able to
meet standards of performance necessary for a changing world. Chapter 1 of the report describes how the
1992 standards were prepared and provides examples of test exercises that illustrate the mathematics
content reflected in the descriptions of the NAEP achievement levels.
Reporting NAEP results on the basis of achievement levels represents a significant change in practice for
NCES. On occasion, this agency makes use of emerging analytical approaches that permit new, and
sometimes controversial, analyses to be done. Just as other statistical agencies do when introducing new
measures to supplement or replace old measures, NCES has in this report provided the data according to
the earlier procedures in addition to the new procedures. For this reason, in addition to NAEP results
reported according to achievement levels, results according to the scale anchoring procedure that has been
used since the 1984 assessment can be found in an appendix to this report. Presenting the data both ways
gives the public
not just technical evaluators -- an opportunity to be informed, so that all data users will
be able to assess for themselves how well the various forms of reporting and interpreting the data meet
their needs.
1 1
2
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Viigin Islands
Technical Review of NCES Reports
All reports published by NCES are evaluated through an adjudication procedure. This process represents a
final quality control check designed to assure that all publications conform to statistical standards, are
grounded in the data, and take into account relevant substantive research literature. The adjudication
process also attempts to delete misleading interpretive statements, and provide text that is clear and
understandable to the American public. During the adjudication of this report neither the process for
setting achievement levels developed by ACT nor the scores representing each level was addressed. The
process and the cutpoints were taken as a given. The issue of valid inferences was addressed however. A
number of reviewers interpreted statements about what students should do at the various achievement levels
according to the standards set by NAGB as statements about what students can do. Independent studies
are being conducted concerning the appropriate inferences that can be drawn from the NAEP results
reported by achievement levels. Early results from technical evaluations suggested that this apparently
logical step in interpretation might not be justified after closer examination of the data about what students
at these levels actually demonstrate in terms of mathematical competencies. Discussion about the
achievement levels also raised questions about the need for validity evidence for the anchor levels, as well as
for greater understanding of the underlying assumptions of the process by which they were developed.'
This issue led NCES to seek the advice of several technical committees and to convene a meeting of
technical and policy experts. Members, staff, and contractors of the National Assessment Governing Board
participated in this meeting. Altogether these activities provided a forum for discussion of various historical
and proposed approaches to interpreting the NAEP scale. In order to better inform the public about these
and other interpretation issues, a companion NCES report entitled Intetpreting NAEP Scales (Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1993) explains several approaches to reporting information
from NAEP.
Actual Student Performance
Then the next question is: Through their performance on the NAEP items, what actual knowledge and
abilities did students demonstrate? Chapters 1-7 of this report include information on overall means and on
distributions of scores, all taken directly from the test item data. The Appendix addresses this question in
the manner that NAEP has used since 1985, using anchor points. As implemented for this report, the scale
anchoring process provides a concise summary of what students know and can do at various points along
the scale that differentiates them from students performing at lower levels.
First, students performing at or
around four intervals on the scale were identified (200, 250, 300, and 350 -- each of which is one standard
deviation unit apart). Next, questions were identified that were answered correctly by 65 percent or more
of the students at one level and by fewer than half of the students at the next lower level. Finally,
mathematics educators were asked to analyze each anchor-level question and create summary descriptors of
the knowledge and skills evidenced by students who answered these sets of questions successfully. The
critical distinction here is that anchor levels attempt to describe what students can do at and around
selected points on the NAEP scale; achievement levels attempt to describe what students should be able to
do in various ranges of the NAEP scale.
Forsyth, R.A. "Do NAEP scales yield valid criterion-referenced interpretations?" Education Measurement: Issues and Practice
10, 3-9, 16, 1991.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
3
2
Vugin Islands
Future Work
These achievement level standards are in the second round (the first being in 1990) in a developmental
process which has been revised and is still under review through several studies.2 The Board's goal is to
provide a statement of what American students should be able to do as a standard that can give more
meaning to the NAEP data. They then want to use the NAEP data to inform the nation as to how many
students actually can meet these standards.
NCES realizes that modifications and improvements may be necessary in the future as current procedures
are evaluated and new approaches are considered. NCES conceives of this process as a research and
developmental activity in which numerous statistical, psychometric, and substantive issues must be resolved.
At the present time the effort is hampered by the problem of trying to create standards on a given
framework and item pool developed for another purpose. In the future the measurement of standards will
be a more prominent influence on the development of NAEP procedures.
The goal of the National Center for Education Statistics is to make data available for the public and to do
so in accurate and understandable ways that are not misleading. In this case, much of what matters in
NAEP is changing:
the content in response to the developing standards of various curricular groups;
the test items in response to new developments in assessments; and
the reporting in response to, and increasing interest in, student achievement relative to
standards of student performance.
We believe that the numerous completed and on-going studies will lead to national debate that will assure
the public is well informed about these issues
as informed they must be because the results will be a vital
influence on what Americans come to think about the condition and progress of our schools.
In addition, the public needs the data in this report to see for themselves what standards-based reporting
might do and to evaluate the often conflicting claims of adherents and detractors of these changes in
approaches to reporting on the educational achievement of American students. The Center eventually
wants to use the achievement levels to describe what students know and can do. In order to accomplish
that, the frameworks, tests, and achievement levels may need to be developed in tandem. That is easier to
say than to do, however, because it implies a substantially larger pool of test exercises, carefully designed to
support reporting about performance relative to a set of performance standards. Clearly this is a
developmental effort that will take time and several iterations, during which data supporting appropriate
inferences about the performance of American students will continue to be gathered.
2
Assessing Student Achievement in the States. The First Report of the National Academy of Education Panel on the Evaluation of
the NAEP Trial State Assessment: 1990 Trial State Assessment. (Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education, 1992).; Linn,
R.L.; Koretz, D.M.; Baker, E.L.; and Burstein, L The Validity and Credibility of the Achievement Levels for the 1990 National
Assessment of Educational Progress in Mathematics, Technical Report CSE No. 330. (Los Angeles, CA: Center for Research on
Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, UCLA, June, 1991).
4
1T8E 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Vugin Islands
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Trial State Assessment
In 1988, Congress passed new legislation for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) that
continued its primary mission of providing dependable and comprehensive information about educational
progress in the United States. In addition, for the first time in the project's history, the legislation also
included a provision authorizing voluntary, state-by-state assessments on a trial basis.
As a result of the legislation, the 1990 NAEP program included a Trial State Assessment Program that
assessed public-school students in 37 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories in eighth-grade
mathematics.3 The 1992 NAEP program included an expanded Trial State Assessment Program in fourth-
and eighth-grade mathematics and fourth-grade reading, with public-school students assessed in 41 states,
the District of Columbia, and two territories. In addition, national assessments in mathematics, reading,
writing, and science were conducted concurrently with the Trial State Assessment Program in 1990 and in
1992.
In the Virgin Islands in 1992, 6 public schools participated in the eighth-grade mathematics assessment.
The weighted school participation rate was 100 percent in eighth grade, which means that the eighth-grade
students in this sample of schools were representative of 100 percent of all the eighth-grade public-school
students in the Virgin Islands.
In total, 1,479 eighth-grade Virgin Islands public-school students were assessed in mathematics. The
weighted student participation rate was 92 percent in grade 8. This means that the sample of students who
took part in the assessment was representative of 92 percent of the eligible eighth-grade public-school
student population in participating schools in the Virgin Islands (that is, all students minus those excluded
from the assessment).
The overall weighted response rate (school rate times student rate) was 92 percent. This means that the
sample of students who participated in the assessment was representative of 92 percent of the eligible
eighth-grade public-school student population in the Virgin Islands.
3
For a summary of the 1990 program, see Ina V.S. Mullis, John A. Dossey, Eugene H. Owen, and Gary W. Phillips. The State of
Mathematics Achievement: NAEP's 1990 Assessment of the Nation and the Thal Assessment of the States. (Washington, DC
National Center for Education Statistics, 1991).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
5
Vugin Islands
Students' Mathematics Performance
Students' performance in mathematics was summarized on the NAEP mathematics scale, which ranges from
0 to 500.
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990 vs 1992
The average proficiency of public-school students in the Virgin Islands on the NAEP
mathematics scale was 222.
This proficiency was lower than that of students across the
nation (266)4. The lowest performing 10 percent of the students in the Virgin Islands had
proficiencies below 183 while the top 10 percent of the students had proficiencies above 260.
The average proficiency of public-school students in the Virgin Islands in 1992 was higher
than the average proficiency in 1990 (222 in 1992 and 219 in 1990). In the Virgin Islands,
the score that signified the 10th percentile in 1992 (183) was about the same as the score
that signified the 10th percentile in 1990 (181). Similarly, the score that signified the 90th
percentile in 1992 (260) was about the same as the score that signified the 90th percentile
in 1990 (257).
LEVELS OF ACHIEVEMENT
When Congress established the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) in 1988 to set policy for
NAEP, it charged the board with "identifying appropriate achievement goals for each age and grade in each
subject area to be tested under the National Assessment." (Pub. L. 297-100 Section 3403 (a)(5)(B)(ii)).
NAGB developed three achievement levels for each grade -- Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. Performance
at the Basic level denotes partial mastery of the knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient
work at each grade level. The central level, called Proficient, represents solid academic performance at
each grade level tested. Students reaching this level demonstrate competency over challenging subject
matters and are well prepared for the next level of schooling. Achievement at the Advanced level signifies
superior performance at the grade tested.
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990 vs 1992
Some of the public-school students in the Virgin Islands (13 percent), versus 61 percent in
the nation, are at or above the Basic level, while relatively few of the students in the Virgin
Islands (1 percent), versus 23 percent in the nation, are at or above the Proficient level, and
none of the students in the Virgin Islands (0 percent), versus 3 percent in the nation, are
at or above the Advanced level.
Compared to 1990, there was no significant difference in the percentage of students in the
Virgin Islands at or above the Basic level (13 percent in 1992 compared to 10 percent in
1990), no significant difference in the percentage of students at or above the Proficient level
(1 percent in 1992 compared to 1 percent in 1990), and no significant difference in the
percentage of students at or above the Advanced level (0 percent in 1992 compared to 0
percent in 1990).
4
Differences reported are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that with 95 percent confidence,
there is a real difference in the average mathematics proficiency between the two populations of interest. "About the same"
means that no statistically significant difference was found at the 95 percent confidence level.
6
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
15
'Pugin Islands
CONTENT AREA PERFORMANCE
The questions comprising the Trial State Assessment covered five content areas--Numbers and Operations;
Measurement; Geometry; Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability; Algebra and Functions--as well as
Estimation. Estimation was measured using a special paced audiotape that limited the amount of time
students had to work on each question and made any direct calculations of answers difficult. The
information from the Estimation section is intended to supplement the data obtained from the Numbers
and Operations and the Measurement questions administered using the more traditional paper-and-pencil or
calculator approaches.
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990 vs 1992
Students in the Virgin Islands performed lower than students in the nation in all of the five
content areas and in Estimation.
The area of Estimation was not included in the 1990 Trial State Assessment program.
Therefore, change in eighth-grade performance is provided only for the five content areas.
There was an improvement in student performance from 1990 to 1992 in the Virgin Islands
in Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability.
Subpopulation Performance
Many of the reforms recommended for mathematics education have emphasized the need to stress
mathematics for all students.5 Nevertheless, assessment results consistently show lower achievement for
subpopulations of students who are less advantaged than their classmates.6 The 1992 Trial State
Assessment sheds further light on this by reporting on the performance of various subgroups of the student
population defined by race/ethnicity, type of community, parents' education level, and gender.
In the Virgin Islands:
RACE/ETHNICITY
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990 vs 1992
Black students demonstrated higher average mathematics proficiency than did Hispanic
students. Relatively few of the Black students (1 percent) and none of the Hispanic students
(0 percent) were at or above the Proficient level.
The performance of Black and Hispanic students stayed about the same from 1990 to 1992.
About the same percentage of Black and Hispanic students were at or above the Proficient
level in 1992 as in 1990.
5
Everybody Counts: A Report to the Nation on the Future of Mathematics Education, Lynn Steen, Ed. (Washington, DC: National
Research Council, National Academy Press, 1989).
6
Ina V.S. Mullis, John A. Dossey, Eugene H. Owen, and Gary W. Phillips. The State of Mathematics Achievement: NAEP's 1990
Assessment of the Nation and the Trial Assessment of the States. (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics,
1991).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
7
Virgin Islands
TYPE OF COMMUNITY
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990 vs 1992
Students attending schools in areas classified as "other" demonstrated about the same
average mathematics proficiency as did students attending schools in extreme rural areas.
None of the students attending schools in areas classified as "other" (0 percent) were at or
above the Proficient level.
Students in areas classified as "other" and extreme rural areas performed about the same in
1992 as in 1990. About the same percentage of students in areas classified as "other" and
extreme rural areas were at or above the Proficient level in 1992 as in 1990.
PARENTS' EDUCATION LEVEL
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990 vs 1992
GENDER
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990 vs 1992
8
Students who reported that at least one parent graduated from college demonstrated lower
average mathematics proficiency than did students who reported that at least one parent had
some education after high school but about the same proficiency as did students who
reported that at least one parent graduated from high school or neither parent graduated
from high school and higher proficiency than did students who reported that they did not
know their parents' education level. Achievement was at or above the Proficient level for
2 percent of the students who reported that at least one parent graduated from college, 2
percent of the students who reported that at least one parent had some education after high
school, 0 percent of the students who reported that at least one parent graduated from high
school, 0 percent of the students who reported that neither parent graduated from high
school, and 0 percent of the students who reported that they did not know their parents'
education level.
Students who reported that at least one parent graduated from college, at least one parent
had some education after high school, at least one parent graduated from high school,
neither parent graduated from high school, or they did not know their parents' education
level performed about the same in 1992 as in 1990. About the same percentage of students
who reported that at least one parent graduated from college, at least one parent had some
education after high school, at least one parent graduated from high school, neither parent
graduated from high school, or they did not know their parents' education level were at or
above the Proficient level in 1992 as in 1990.
In the Virgin Islands, there appears to be no significant difference in the average proficiency
of eighth-grade males and females.
There was no significant difference between the
percentages of eighth-grade males and females who were at or above the Proficient level (1
percent for females and 1 percent for males).
The average mathematics proficiency for eighth-grade females in 1992 was higher than the
average mathematics proficiency for eighth-grade females in 1990. The average mathematics
proficiency for eighth-grade males in 1992 was about the same as the average mathematics
proficiency for eighth-grade males in 1990.
Furthermore, about the same percentage of
eighth-grade males were at or above the Proficient level in 1992 as in 1990. About the same
percentage of eighth-grade females were at or above the Proficient level in 1992 as in 1990.
1 7
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Vugin Islands
A Context for Understanding Students' Mathematics Proficiency
The results of the Trial State Assessment can be used to monitor students' progress in achieving the
recommendations of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and to examine both school and
home contexts for educational support. The public-school students participating in the 1992 Trial State
Assessment, their mathematics teachers, and the principals or other administrators in their schools were
asked to complete questionnaires on policies, instruction, and programs. These student, teacher, and school
data help to describe some of the current practices and emphases in mathematics education, illuminate
some of the factors that appear to be related to eighth-grade public-school students' proficiency in the
subject, and provide an educational context for understanding data on student achievement. The data from
the questionnaires also provide a means to examine changes in policies, instruction, and programs at the
eighth-grade level between 1990 and 1992 for those states and territories that participated in both Trial
State Assessment Programs.
Highlights of the results for the public-school students in the Virgin Islands are as follows:
CURRICULUM COVERAGE AND INSTRUCTIONAL EMPHASIS
According to their mathematics teachers, 31 percent of the eighth-grade students
received four or more hours of mathematics instruction per week.
According to their mathematics' teachers, the greatest percentage of eighth-grade
students were assigned 30 minutes of mathematics homework each day.
In gade 8, average mathematics proficiency was higher for students in the Virgin
Islands who spent 30 minutes on mathematics homework than for students who spent
an hour or more on mathematics homework each day.
In the Virgin Islands, 71 percent of the eighth-grade students had mathematics
teachers who placed heavy instructional emphasis on Numbers and Operations, 9
percent had teachers who placed heavy instructional emphasis on Measurement, 2
percent had teachers who placed heavy instructional emphasis on Geometry, 13
percent had teachers who placed heavy instructional emphasis on Data Analysis,
Statiitics, and Probability, and 25 percent had teachers who placed heavy instructional
emphasis on Algebra and Functions.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
9
1 3
rugin Islands
DELIVERY OF MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTION
According to the mathematics teachers in the Virgin Islands, 29 percent of the eighth-
grade students worked mathematics problems in small groups at least weekly; less
than half in grade 8 never or hardly ever worked mathematics problems in small
groups (34 percent).
According to the students in the Virgin Islands, 39 percent of the eighth-grade
students worked mathematics problems in small groups at least weekly; 45 percent in
grade 8 reported never or hardly ever working mathematics problems in small groups.
According to the mathematics teachers in the Virgin Islands, 89 percent of the eighth-
grade students were assigned problems from a mathematics textbook almost every
day; 0 percent in eighth grade worked textbook problems less than weekly.
According to the students in the Virgin Islands, 81 percent of the eighth-grade
students were assigned problems from a mathematics textbook almost every day; 4
percent in eighth grade worked textbook problems less than weekly.
USE OF CALCULATORS
In the Virgin Islands, 49 percent of eighth-grade students were in schools in which
they were given access to four-function calculators and 20 percent were in schools in
which they were given access to scientific calculators. Across the nation, these figures
were 66 percent for four-function calculators and 37 percent for scientific calculators.
In addition, in the Virgin Islands, 62 percent of eighth graders had mathematics
teachers who reported providing instruction to students about the use of four-function
calculators and 42 percent had teachers who reported providing instruction about
scientific calculators. Nationally, these figures were 64 percent and 37 percent of the
eighth-grade students, respectively.
According to the students' mathematics teachers, 39 percent of the eighth-grade
students used calculators at least once a week in mathematics class. By comparison,
38 percent in eighth grade never or hardly ever used a calculator. In 1990, 17 percent
of the eighth-grade students had mathematics teachers who reported that they used
calculators at least once a week and 46 percent had mathematics teachers who
reported that they never or hardly ever used calculators.
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OF TEACHERS
In the Virgin Islands, 23 percent of the eighth-grade students were being taught by
mathematics teachers who reported having at least a master's or education specialist's
degree. Across the nation, this figure was 47 percent for eighth-grade students.
In the Virgin Islands, 51 percent of the eighth-grade public-school students were being
taught mathematics by teachers who had an undergraduate major in mathematics.
Across the nation, 45 percent of the eighth-grade students had mathematics teachers
with a major in mathematics.
10
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
19
Vugin Islands
HOME FACTORS
Grade 8 students in the Virgin Islands who had all four types of reading materials (an
encyclopedia, newspapers, magazines, and more than 25 books in the home) showed
a higher mathematics proficiency than did students with zero to two types of
materials.
Some of the eighth-grade public-school students in the Virgin Islands (13 percent)
watched one hour or less of television each day; 32 percent watched six hours or
more. In 1990, 18 percent watched one hour or less of television each day while 27
percent watched six hours or more.
Comparisons of Overall Mathematics Proficiency in the Virgin Islands with Other
States
The map on the following page provides a method for making appropriate comparisons of the average
overall mathematics proficiency of eighth-grade students in the Virgin Islands with that in the other states
(including the District of Columbia) and territories that participated in the NAEP 1992 Trial State
Assessment Program. The different shadings of the states on the map show whether the average overall
proficiency in the other states was statistically different from or not statistically different from that in the
Virgin Islands ("Target State"). States with a dark-colored shading have a significantly higher average
proficiency than does the Virgin Islands. States with a light-colored shading have a significantly lower
average proficiency than does the Virgin Islands. States without shading are not significantly different from
the Virgin Islands. The significance tests are based on a Bonferroni procedure for multiple comparisons
that holds the probability of erroneously declaring the means of any two states to be different, when they
are not, to five percent across all possible comparisons.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
11
2 0
2 1
The 1992 Trial State Assessment
Comparisons of Overall Mathematics Proficiency at Grade 8
Virgin Islands
IA
MD
GUAM
Target state
State has statistically significantly higher average proficiency than target state
No statistically significant difference from target state
State has statistically significantly lower average proficiency than target state
State did not participate
BEST COP MAORI
2 2
DC
(7.
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Trial State Assessment
Virgin Islands
OVERVIEW
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Trial State Assessment
In 1988, Congress passed new legislation for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) that
continued its primary mission of providing dependable and comprehensive information about educational
progress in the United States. In addition, for the first time in the project's history, the legislation also
included a provision authorizing voluntary, state-by-state assessments on a trial basis:
The National Assessment shall develop a trial mathematics assessment survey instrument for the eighth grade
and shall conduct a demonstration of the instrument in 1990 in States which wish to participate, with the
purpose of determining whether such an assessment yields vali4 reliable State representative date.
(Section
406(i)(2)(C)(i) of the General Education Provisions Act, as amended by Pub. L. 100-297 (U.S.C. 1221e-
1(i)(2)(c)(i)))
The National Assessment shall conduct a trial mathematics assessment for the fourth and eighth grades in
1992 an4 pursuant to subparagraph (6) (D), shall develop a trial reading assessment to be administered in
1992 for the fourth grade in States which wish to participate, with the purpose of determining whether such an
assessment yields valid, reliable State representative data. (Section 406(i)(2)(C)(i) of the General Education
Provisions Act, as amended by Pub. L. 100-297 (U.S.C. 1221e-1(i)(2)(c)(ii)))
As a result of the legislation, the 1990 NAEP program included a Trial State Assessment Program that
assessed public-school students in 37 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories in eighth-gade
mathematics.' The 1992 NAEP program included an expanded Trial State Assessment Program in fourth-
and eighth-grade mathematics and fourth-grade reading, with public-school students assessed in 41 states,
the District of Columbia, and two territories. In addition, national assessments in mathematics, reading,
writing, and science were conducted concurrently with the Trial State Assessment Program in 1990 and in
1992.
7
For a summary of the 1990 program, see Ina V.S. Mullis, John A. Dossey, Eugene H. Owen, and Gary W. Phillips. The State of
Mathematics Achievement: NAEP's 1990 Assessment of the Nation and the Trial Assessment of the States.
(Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics, 1991).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
13
2 3
Vugin Islands
The 1992 Trial State Assessment Program was conducted in February 1992 with the following 44
participants:
Alabama
Louisiana
Ohio
Arizona
Maine
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Maryland
Pennsylvania
California
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Colorado
Michigan
South Carolina
Connecticut
Minnesota
Tennessee
Delaware
Mississippi
Texas
District of Columbia
Missouri
Utah
Florida
Nebraska
Virginia
Georgia
New Hampshire
West Virginia
Hawaii
New Jersey
Wisconsin
Idaho
New Mexico
Wyoming
Indiana
New York
Iowa
North Carolina
Guam
Kentucky
North Dakota
Virgin Islands*
The Virgin Islands participated in the 1992 Trial State Assessment Program. However, in accordance with the legislation pmviding for
participants to review and give permission for release of their results, the Virgin Islands chose not to publish their results at grade 4.
States in bold type did not participate in the 1990 Trial State Assessment. Three states -- Montana, Illinois,
and Oregon -- participated in the 1990 Trial State Assessment but not in the 1992 program.
For the 1992 Trial State Assessment, approximately 1,500-2,500 students were assessed in each jurisdiction.
The samples were carefully designed to represent the eighth-grade public-school populations in each state or
territory. Similar to the 1990 program, local school district personnel administered all assessment sessions,
and the contractor's staff monitored 50 percent of the sessions as part of the quality assurance program
designed to ensure that the sessions were conducted uniformly. The results of the monitoring in 1990 and
1992 indicated a high degree of quality and uniformity across sessions.
Both the 1990 and 1992 Trial State Assessments in mathematics were based on a set of objectives
developed for the program and patterned after the consensus process described in Public Law 98-511,
Section 405 (E), which authorized NAEP through June 30, 1988. Anticipating the 1988 legislation that
authorized the Trial State Assessment, the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of
Education issued a special grant to the Council of Chief State School Officers in mid-1987 to develop the
objectives. The objectives development process included careful attention to the standards developed by the
14
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
2 4
Virgin Islands
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,8 the formal mathematics objectives of states and of a
sampling of local districts, and the opinions of practitioners at the state and local levels as to what content
should be assessed.
The objectives were reviewed extensively by mathematics educators, scholars, states' mathematics
supervisors, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), and the Assessment Policy Committee
(APC), a panel advising on NAEP policy at that time. They were further refmed by NAEP's Item
Development Panel, reviewed by the Task Force on State Comparisons, and resubmitted to NCES for peer
review. Because the objectives needed to be coordinated across all grades for the national program, the
final objectives provided specifications for the NAEP mathematics assessment at the fourth, eighth, and
twelfth grades, rather than solely for the Trial State Assessment Program. An overview of the mathematics
objectives is provided in the Procedural Appendix.
This Report
This is a computer-generated report that describes the mathematics performance of eighth-grade public-
school students in the Virgin Islands and across the nation. This report consists of three sections:
The Introduction provides background information about the Trial State Assessment
and a profile of the eighth-grade public-school students in the Virgin Islands.
Part One describes the mathematics performance of the eighth-grade public-school
students in the Virgin Islands and the nation. It also describes the change in eighth-
grade performance for those jurisdictions that participated in both the 1990 and 1992
Trial State Assessment Programs.
Part Two relates eighth-grade students' mathematics performance to contextual
information about the mathematics policies and instruction in the Virgin Islands and
the nation.
Part Two also compares the eighth-grade data for 1990 and 1992 for
those jurisdictions that participated in both Trial State Assessment Progams.
In this report, results are provided for groups of students defined by shared characteristics -- race/ethnicity,
type of community, parents' education level, and gender. Definitions of these subpopulations are presented
below. The results for the Virgin Islands are based on the representative sample of students who
participated in the 1992 Trial State Assessment Program. The results for the nation are based on the
nationally representative samples of public-school students who were assessed in January through March as
part of the 1992 national NAEP program. Using the national results from the 1992 national NAEP
program is necessary because the voluntary nature of the Trial State Assessment Program did not guarantee
representative national results from the aggregated data across states, since not every state participated in
the program. Specific details on the samples and analysis procedures used in 1990 and 1992 can be found
in the Technical Reports for the NAEP Trial State Assessment Program for each of the assessment years.9
8
Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. (Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
1989).
9
Technical Report of NAEP's 1990 Trial State Assessment Program. (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics,
1991).; Technical Report of NAEP's 1992 Trial State Assessment Program. (Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics, 1993).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
15
2 5
Vugin Islands
RACE/ETHNICITY
Results are presented for students of different racial/ethnic groups based on the students' self-identification
of their race/ethnicity according to the following mutually exclusive categories: White, Black, Hispanic,
Asian (including Pacific Islander), and American Indian (including Alaskan Native). Based on criteria
described in the Procedural Appendix, there must be at least 62 students in a particular subpopulation in
order for the results for that subpopulation to be considered reliable. Thus, results for racial/ethnic groups
with fewer than 62 students are not reported. However, the data for all students, regardless of whether
their racial/ethnic group was reported separately, were included in computing overall results for the Virgin
Islands. In addition, change in eighth-grade performance from 1990 to 1992 is reported only for those
racial/ethnic groups for which there were at least 62 students in both the 1990 and 1992 samples.
TYPE OF COMMUNITY
Results are provided for four mutually exclusive community types -- advantaged urban, disadvantaged urban,
extreme rural, and other -- as defined below:
Advantaged Urban: Students in this group live in metropolitan statistical areas and attend schools where
a high proportion of the students' parents are in professional or managerial positions.
Disadvantaged Urban: Students in this group live in metropolitan statistical areas and attend schools where
a high proportion of the students' parents are on welfare or are not regularly employed.
Extreme Rural:
Students in this group live outside metropolitan statistical areas, live in areas with a
population below 10,000, and attend schools where many of the students' parents are farmers or farm
workers.
Other:
Students in this category attend schools in areas other than those defined as advantaged urban,
disadvantaged urban, or extreme rural.
The reporting of results by each type of community was also subject to a minimum student sample size of
62. Change in eighth-grade performance is reported only for those types of communities for which there
were at least 62 students in both the 1990 and 1992 samples.
PARENTS' EDUCATION LEVEL
Students were asked to indicate the extent of schooling for each of their parents -- did not finish high
school, graduated from high school, some education after high school, or graduated from college. The
response indicating the higher level of education was selected for reporting. Reporting of results by
parents' education level was also subject to a minimum student sample size of 62, and change in eighth-
grade performance is reported only for those levels of parents' education for which there were at least 62
students in both the 1990 and 1992 samples.
GENDER
Results are reported separately for males and females.
16
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
2 6
Virgin Islands
Guidelines for AnaVsis and
eporting
This report describes the mathematics proficiency of eighth-grade students attending public schools and
compares the results for various groups of students within that population -- for example, those who have
certain demographic characteristics or who responded to a specific background question in a particular way.
The report examines the results for individual groups and individual background questions. It does not
include an analysis of the relationships among combinations of these subpopulations or background
questions.
Because the proportions of students in these groups and their average proficiency are based on samples --
rather than the entire population of eighth graders in public schools in the state or territory -- the numbers
reported are necessarily estimates. As such, they are subject to a measure of uncertainty, reflected in the
standard error of the estimate. When the proportions or average proficiency of certain groups are
compared, it is essential that the standard error be taken into account, rather than relying solely on
observed similarities or differences. Therefore, the comparisons discussed in this report are based on
statistical tests that consider both the magnitude of the difference between the means or proportions and the
standard errors of those statistics.
The statistical tests determine whether the evidence -- based on the data from the groups in the sample -- is
strong enough to conclude that the means or proportions are really different for those groups in the
population. If the evidence is strong (i.e., the difference is statistically significant), the report describes the
group means or proportions as being different (e.g., one group performed higher than or lower than another
group) -- regardless of whether the sample means or sample proportions appear to be about the same or
not. If the evidence is not sufficiently strong (i.e., the difference is not statistically significant), the means or
proportions are described as being about the same
again, regardless of whether the sample means or
sample proportions appear to be about the same or widely discrepant. The reader is cautioned to rely on
the results of the statistical tests -- rather than on the apparent magnitude of the difference between sample
means or proportions -- to determine whether those sample differences are likely to represent actual
differences between the groups in the population. The statistical tests and Bonferroni procedure, which is
used when more than two groups are being compared, are discussed in greater detail in the Procedural
Appendix.
In addition, some of the percentages reported in the text of the report are given quantitative descriptions.
The descriptive phrases used and the rules to select them are also described in the Procedural Appendix.
Finally, in several places in this report, results (mean proficiencies and proportions) are reported in the text
for combined groups of students. For example, in the text, the percentage of students in the combined
group taking either algebra or pre-algebra is given and compared to the percentage of students enrolled in
eighth-grade mathematics. However, the tables that accompany that text report percentages and
proficiencies separately for the three groups (algebra, pre-algebra, and eighth-grade mathematics). The
combined-group percentages reported in the text and used in all statistical tests are based on unrounded
estimates (i.e., estimates calculated to several decimal places) of the percentages in each group. The
percentages shown in the tables are rounded to integers. Thus, percentages may not always add up to 100
percent due to rounding. Also, the percentage for a combined group (reported in the text) may differ
slightly from the sum of the separate percentages (presented in the tables) for each of the groups that were
combined. Therefore, if statistical tests were to be conducted based on the rounded numbers in the tables,
the results might not be consonant with the results of the statistical tests that are reported in the test (based
on unrounded numbers).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
17
2
Virgin Islands
Profile of the Virgin Islands
EIGHTH-GRADE SCHOOL AND STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Table 1 provides a profile of the demographic characteristics of the eighth-grade public-school students in
the Virgin Islands and the nation. The profile is based on data collected from the students and schools
participating in the 1992 NAEP mathematics assessments.
SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS ASSESSED
Table 2 summarizes participation data for Virgin Islands schools and students sampled for both the 1990
and 1992 Trial State Assessment in mathematics.m In the Virgin Islands, in 1992, 6 public schools
participated in the eighth-grade assessment. This number includes participating substitute schools that were
selected for some of the nonparticipating schools from the original sample. The weighted school
participation rate was 100 percent in eighth grade, which means that the eighth-grade students in this
sample of schools were representative of 100 percent of all the eighth-grade public-school students in the
Virgin Islands.
In each school a random sample of students was selected to participate in the assessment. As estimated by
the sample, 2 percent of the eighth-grade public-school population were classified as Limited English
Proficient (LEP), while 5 percent in eighth grade had an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). An IEP is a
plan, written for a student who has been determined to be eligible for special education, that typically sets
forth goals and objectives for the student and describes a program of activities and/or related services
necessary to achieve the goals and objectives. Handicapped or disabled students may be categorized as
IEP.
Schools were permitted to exclude certain students from the assessment. To be excluded, a student had to
be categorized as Limited English Proficient or had to have an Individualized Education Plan and (in either
case) be judged incapable of participating in the assessment. The intent was to assess all selected students;
therefore, all selected students who were capable of participating in the assessment should have been
assessed. However, schools were allowed to exclude those students who, in the judgment of school staff,
could not meaningfully participate. The NAEP guidelines for exclusion are intended to assure uniformity of
exclusion criteria from school to school. Note that some LEP and IEP students were deemed eligible to
participate and not excluded from the assessment. The students in the Virgin Islands who were excluded
from the assessment because they were categorized as LEP or had an IEP represented 5 percent of the
population in grade 8.
In total, 1,479 eighth-grade Virgin Islands public-school students were assessed in mathematics. The
weighted student participation rate was 92 percent in grade 8. This means that the sample of students who
took part in the assessment was representative of 92 percent of the eligible eighth-grade public-school
student populations in participating schools in the Virgin Islands (that is, all students minus those excluded
from the assessment). The overall weighted response rate (school rate times student rate) was 92 percent.
This means that the sample of students who participated in the assessment was representative of 92 percent
of the eligible eighth-grade public-school student population in the Virgin Islands.
10
For a detailed discussion of the NCES guidelines for sample participation, see School and Student Participation Rates for the
Mathematics Assessment (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1992).; or see Appendix B. of the 1992 State
Technical Report.
18
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
2 3
'Pugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Trial State Assassmaat
Iraq
TABLE 1
Profile of Public-School Students in
the Virgin Islands and the Nation
Grade 8
1990
1992
Percentage
Percentage
DEMOGRAPHIC SUBGROUPS
RACE/EMNICITY
Virgin Islands
White
2 (0.2)
1 (0.4)
Black
77 (1.1)
77 (1.1)
Hispanic
20 (1.0)
21 (0.9)
Asian
0 (0.2)
0 (0.1)
American Indian
1 (0.2)
0 (0.2)
Nation
White
70 (0.5)
69 (0.4)
Black
16 (0.3)
16 (0.2)
Hispanic
10 (0.4)
10 (0.3)
Asian
2 (0.5)
2 (0.2)
American Indian
2 (0.7)
1 (0.2)
TWE OF COMMUNITY
Virgin islands
Advantaged Urban
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
Disadvantaged Urban
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
Extreme Rural
19 (0.2)
27 (0.2) >
Other
81 (0.2)
73 (0.2) <
Nation
Advantaged Urban
10 (3.3)
8 (2.2)
Disadvantaged Urban
10 (2.8)
9 (1.5)
Extreme Rural
10 (3.0)
10 (2.8)
Other
70 (4.4)
72 (3.5)
PARENTS' EDUCATION
Virgin Islands
Graduated college
21 (1.4)
23 (1.1)
Some education after high school
10 (0.7)
11 (0.8)
Graduated high school
29 (1.5)
29 (0.9)
Did not finish high school
15 (1.0)
14 (0.9)
I don't-know
24 (1.3)
24 (1.0)
Nation
Graduated college
39 (1.9)
40 (1.4)
Some education after high school
17 (0.9)
18 (0.6)
Graduated high school
25 (1.2)
25 (0.8)
Did not finish high school
10 (0.8)
8 (0.6)
I don't know
9 (0.7)
9 (0.5)
GENDER
Virgin Islands
Male
49 (1.1)
53 (1.4) >
Female
51 (1.1)
47 (1.4) <
Nation
Male
51 (1.1)
52 (0.6)
Female
49 (1.1)
48 (0.6)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each
population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing
two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for details). If the notation > appears, it
signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1999 at about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation
< appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
The percentages for Race/Ethnicity may not add to 100 percent because some students categorized themselves as "Other."
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
o n
BEST COPY AVAILARL E
19
Virgin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT ramp
CARD
1992
Mal State Assessment
1
TABLE 2
Profile of the Population Assessed in
the Virgin Islands
Grade 8
1990
1
1992
PUBLIC SCHOOL PARTICIPATION
Weighted school participation rate before substitution
Weighted school participation rate after substitution
Number of schools originally sampled
Number of schools not eligible
Number of schools in original sample participating
Number of substitute schools provided
100%
100%
100%
100%
6
6
0
0
6
6
0
0
Number
Total
Weighted
Number
of substitute schools participating
number of participating schools
0
6
93%
1,491
0
6
92%
1,747
PUBLIC-SCHOOL STUDENT PARTICIPATION
student participation rate after makeups
of students selected to participate in the assessment
Number of students withdrawn from the assessment
16
60
Percentage of students who were of Limited English Proficiency
0%
2%
Percentage of students excluded from the assessment due to
0%
2%
Limited English Proficiency
Percentage of students who had an Individualized Education Plan
4%
5%
Percentage of students excluded from the assessment due to
3%
3%
Individualized Education Plan status
Number of students to be assessed
1,427
1,601
Number of students assessed
1,326
1,479
Overall weighted response rate
93%
92%
In the Virgin Islands, the 1990 and 1992 Trial State Assessments were based on all eligible schools. There was no sampling of schools.
20
3 0
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Vugin Islands
PART ONE
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Trial State Assessment
Map
How Proficient in Mathematics are Eighth-Grade
Students in Virgin Islands Public Schools?
Both the 1990 and 1992 Trial State Assessments covered five mathematics content areas -- Numbers and
Operations; Measurement; Geometry; Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability; and Algebra and Functions.
In addition, items measuring a sixth area -- Estimation -- were included in the 1992 Trial State Assessment.
Estimation was covered in both the 1990 and 1992 national NAEP programs, but not the 1900 Trial State
Assessment.
This part of the report contains two chapters that describe the mathematics proficiency of eighth-grade
public-school students in the Virgin Islands. Chapter 1 compares the overall mathematics performance of
the students in the Virgin Islands to students in the nation. It also presents students' average proficiency
separately for each mathematics content area. Chapter 2 summarizes students' overall mathematics
performance for subpopulations defined by race/ethnicity, type of community, parents' education level, and
gender, as well as their mathematics performance in the content areas. Both chapters also describe the
change in performance of eighth-grade public-school students from 1990 to 1992 for those jurisdictions that
participated in the Trial State Assessment in both years.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
21
rugin Islands
CHAPTER 1
Students' Mathe I I atics Performance
Students' performance in mathematics was summarized on the NAEP mathematics scale, which ranges from
0 to 500. As shown in Table 3A:
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990 vs 1992
The average proficiency of public-school students from the Virgin Islands on the NAEP
mathematics scale was 222.
This proficiency was lower than that of students across the
nation (26).11
The average proficiency of public-school students in the Virgin Islands in 1992 was higher
than the average proficiency for 1990 (222 in 1992 and to 219 in 1990).
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Trial State Aseentnent
TABLE 3A
Average Eighth-Grade Public-School
Mathematics Proficiency
Grade 8
1990
1992
Proficiency
Proficiency
Virgin islands
219 (0.9)
222 (1.1) >
Nation
262 (1.4)
266 (1.0) >
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said
with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within I 2 standard errors of
the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendixfor
details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent
confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the
95 percent confidence level.
11
22
Differences reported are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that with 95 percent confidence,
there is a real difference in the average mathematics proficiency between the two populations of interest. "About the same"
means that no statistically significant difference was found at the 95 percent confidence level.
3 2
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
!Pugin Islands
There was also a tremendous range in student performance within each grade as shown by the percentile
distributions presented in Table 3B.
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990 vs 1992
The lowest performing 10 percent of the students in the Virgin Islands had proficiencies
below 183 while the top 10 percent of the students had proficiencies above 260.
In the Virgin Islands, the score that signified the 10th percentile in 1992 (183) was about the
same as the score that signified the 10th percentile in 1990 (181). Similarly, the score that
signified the 90th percentile in 1992 (260) was about the same as the score that signified the
90th percentile in 1990 (257).
NE NATIONS
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mal State Assesameat
ramp
1
TABLE 3B
Percentiles of Mathematics Proficiency in Eighth-
Grade Public Schools
P
5th
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
95th
Percentile
Percentile
Percentile
Percentile
Percentile
Percentile
Percentile
GRADE 8 1990
Virgin Islands
170 (3.0)
181 (2.0)
199 (1.1)
218 (1.7)
238 (1.2)
257 (1.6)
269 (2.4)
Nation
200 (1.8)
214 (1.8)
237 (1.7)
263 (1.4)
288 (1.7)
307 (1.9)
319 (1.8)
GRADE 8 1992
Virgin Islands
173 (2.2)
183 (1.2)
201 (1.6)
221 (1.2)
242 (13)
260 (1.6)
272 (0.9)
Nation
205 (2.0)
218 (1.6)
241 (1.3)
267 (1.2)
292 (1.0)
313 (1.4)
325 (15)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with
about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standarderrors of the estimate
for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for details). If the
notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence
level.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
23
3 3
rugin Islands
LEVELS OF MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT
Average proficiency on the NAEP scale provides an overall depiction of students' mathematics achievement;
however, by itself, it does not describe what students know and are able to do in the subjects, nor does it evaluate
student performance against a standard. This report next presents a set of results based on applying the National
Assessment Governing Board's standards to student performance on the mathematics scale.
When Congress established the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) in 1988 to set policy for NAEP, it
charged the board with "identifying appropriate achievement goals for each age and grade in each subject area to
be tested under the National Assessment." (Pub. L. 297-100, Section 3403 (a)(5)(B)(ii)). To carry out this
responsibility, NAGB contracted with American College Testing (ACT) to undertake advisory and analytic
functions that could assist the Board in forming its conclusions as to appropriate achievement levels to be used for
evaluating the 1992 mathematics assessment results. Achievement levels are mappings of collective judgments
about how students should perform onto the achievement scale!' Boundary points were developed for three
achievement levels for each grade -- Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. Performance at the Basic level denotes
partial mastery of the knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade level. The
central level, called Proficient, represents solid academic performance at each grade level tested. Students
reaching this level demonstrate competency over challenging subject matter and are well prepared for the next
level of schooling. Achievement at the Advanced level signifies superior performance at each of the grades tested.
In previous NAEP reports, a procedure known as scale anchoring was used to interpret or provide meaning to the
scores.
13 Anchor points are not based on judgments of how much students should know or be able to do, and
they do not differ by grade level.
Instead, scale anchoring provides empirical descriptions of the types of
procedural knowledge, mathematical skills, and problem-solving abilities that students need to answer items
correctly at that level. These descriptions are based on a close examination by mathematics experts of the
characteristics of the mathematics items that best discriminate those students performing at or near each of the
anchor points from those performing at the next lower level. Unlike the achievement-level approach, the scale-
anchoring procedure leaves to the reader the judgment as to whether the achievement demonstrated was adequate
in terms of what students should be able to do. Table S1 in the Scale Anchoring Appendix of this report presents
the percentages of students at or above each of the four anchor points (200, 250, 300, and 350 on the NAEP scale)
for the total population and for selected population subgroups. A companion report, entitled Interpreting NAEP
Scales, describes the development over the last two decades of various procedures for reporting NAEP data and
explains the meaning and interpretation of the NAEP scales.
12
13
The Achievement Levels Appendix briefly describes the process of gathering expert judgments about Basic, Proficient, and
Advanced performance -- as defined by NAGB policy -- on each mathematics item, combining the various judgments on the
various items and mapping them onto the scale, and setting the scale score cutpoints for reporting purposes based on these
levels.
The Scale Anchoring Appendix provides definitions of each of four anchor points (200, 250, 300, and 350 on the NAEP scale)
and briefly describes the process of identifying items that discriminate among students performing at adjacent levels and
generalizing about the skills exemplified by those items.
24
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
3 4
'Pugin Islands
This report follows NAGB's policy that achievement levels should be the primary and initial method of presenting
the results of the 1992 Trial State Assessment. In this report, these achievement levels not only are applied to the
1992 data, showing the proportions of students that achieve the three achievement levels, they also are applied to
data from the 1990 mathematics assessment, permitting a report on changes in percentages of students at or above
each of the achievement levels."
Definitions of the three levels of mathematics achievement are given in Figure 1. Table 4 provides the
percentages of students at or above each of these achievement levels, as well as the percentage of students below
the Basic level.
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990 vs 1992
Some of the public-school students in the Virgin Islands (13 percent), versus 61 percent in
the nation, are at or above the Basic level, while relatively few of the students in the Virgin
Islands (1 percent), versus 23 percent in the nation, are at or above the Proficient level, and
none of the students in the Virgin Islands (0 percent), versus 3 percent in the nation, are
at or above the Advanced level.
Compared to 1990, there was no significant difference in the percentage of students in the
Virgin Islands at or above the Basic level (13 percent in 1992 compared to 10 percent in
1990), no significant difference in the percentage of students at or above the Proficient level
(1 percent in 1992 compared to 1 percent in 1990), and no significant difference in the
percentage of students at or above the Advanced level (0 percent in 1992 compared 0
percent in 1990).
14
The 1990 achievement levels used in this report reflect changes in the processes used to develop the original 1990 achievement
levels. In consequence, the 1990 findings present here differ from the results published earlier by NAGB in its report by Maly
Lyn Bourque and Howard H. Garrison, entitled The Levels of Mathematics Achievement: Initial Petformance Standards for the
1990 NAEP Mathematics Assessment. (Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board, 1991).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
25
3 5
Vugin Islands
FIGURE 1
I Levels of Mathematics Achievement
GRADE 8
THE NATIOWS
REPORT
CARD
1992
THal State Aussiment
ramp
NAEP content areas:
(1) Numbers and Operations; (2) Measurement; (3) Geometry; (4) Data Analysis,
Statistics, and Probability; (5) Algebra and Functions.
Skills are cumulative across all levels -- from Basic to Proficient to Advanced.
BASIC
LEVEL
Eighth-grade students performing at the Basic level should exhibit evidence of conceptual and
procedural understanding in the five NAEP content meas.
This level of performance signifies an
understanding of arithmetic operations
Including estimation
on whole numbers, decimals,
fractions, and percents. In relation to the NAEP scale, Basic-level achievement for eighth grade is
defined by proficiency scores at or above 256.
Eighth graders performing at the Basic level should complete problems correctly with the help of structural prompts such as
diagrams, charts, and graphs. They should be able to solve problems in all NAEP content areas through the appropriate selection
and use of strategies and technological tools, including calculators, computers, and geometric shapes.
Students at this level
should also be able to use fundamental algebraic and informal geometric concepts in problem solving.
As they approach the Proficient level, these students should be able to determine which of available data are necessary and
sufficient for correct solutions and use them in problem solving. However, eighth graders at the Basic level show limited skill in
communicating mathematically.
PROFICIENT
LEVEL
Eighth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should apply mathematical concepts and
piocedures consistently to complex pmblems In the five NAEP content areas. In relation to the NAEP
scale, Proficient-level achievement for eighth grade is defined by proficiency scores at or above
294.
They should be able to conjecture, defend their ideas, and give supporting examples. They should understand the connections
between fractions, percents, decimals, and other mathematical topics such as algebra and functions. Students at the Proficient
level are expected to have a thorough understanding of Basic-level arithmetic operations
an understanding sufficient for problem
solving in practical situations.
Quantity and spatial relationships in problem solving and reasoning should be familiar to them, and they should be able to convey
underlying reasoning skills beyond the level of arithmetic. They should be able to compare and contrast mathematical ideas and
generate their own examples.
These students should make inferences from data and graphs, apply properties of informal
geometry, and accurately use the tools of technology.
Students at this level should understand the process of gathering and
organizing data and be able to calculate, evaluate, and communicate results within the domain of statistics and probability.
ADVANCED
LEVEL
Eighth-grade students at the Advanced level should be able to reach beyond the mcognition,
identification, and application of mathematical rules in order to genemlize and synthesize concepts and
principles in the five NAEP content meas. In relation to the NAEP scale, Advanced-level achievement
for eighth grade is defined by proficiency scores at or above 331.
They should be able to probe examples and counterexamples in order to shape generalizations from which they can develop
models. Eighth graders performing at the Advanced level should use number sense and geometric awareness to consider the
reasonableness of an answer. They are expected to use abstract thinking to create unique problem-solving techniques and explain
the reasoning processes underlying their conclusions.
26
3 6
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Vimin Islands
FIGURE 1 I Levels of Mathematics Achievement
(continued)
THE NOON'S
REPORT
CARO
1992
TM I. Monson!
Grade 8 Basic-Level Example Item
Which of the following is both a multiple of 3 and a multiple of 7?
A.
7,007
B.
8,192
*C. 21,567
D. 22,287
E. 40,040
Did you use the calculator on this question?
Yes
No
Percent Correct
V.I.
67 (1.9)
Nation
76 (1.3)
Grade 8 Proficient-Level Example Rem
80
70
Number 60
of
50
Sit-ups
40
30
10 15 20 25
30
Age in Years
In the graph above, each dot shows the number of sit-ups and the corresponding age for one
of 13 people. According to this graph, what is the median number of sit-ups for these 13 people?
A. 15
B. 20
C. 45
*D. 50
E. 55
Did you use the calculator on this question?
Yes
No
Percent Correct
V.I.
14 (2.1)
Nation
23 (1.4)
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
3 7
27
'Pugin Islands
FIGURE 1
I Levels of Mathematics Achievement
(continued)
THE NATION'S
REPORT lisCp
CARD
1992
TAM $tate Assessment
Grade 8 Advanced-Level Example Rem
A
I
B
4
9
6
13
14
I
?
If the pattern shown in the table were continued, what number would appear in
the box at the bottom of colunm B next to 14?
A. 19
B. 21
C. 23
D. 25
*E. 29
Percent Correct
V.I.
18 (1.8)
Nation
25 (1.4)
28
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
3 8
Vugin Islands
ME NATION'S
REPORT
CARO
1992
Mal State Asseumeat
1
TABLE 4
Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-
School Mathematics Achievement
Grade 8
1990
1992
Percentage
Percentage
Achievement Level
At or Above Mvanced Level
Virgin Islands
0 (0.1)
0 (0.1)
Nation
2 (0.4)
3 (0.5)
At or Above Proficient Level
Virgin Islands
1 (0.4)
1 (0.3)
Nation
19 (1.2)
23 (1.1) >
At or Above Bask Level
Virgin islands
10 (1.1)
13 (1.0)
Nation
57 (1.4)
61 (1.2)
Beiow Bask Level
Virgin Islands
90 (1.1)
87 (1.0)
Nation
43 (1.4)
39 (1.2)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each
population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing
two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for details).
If the notation > appears, it
signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation
< appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
Clearly, many students in the Virgin Islands fail to meet or exceed the achievement levels that prescribe
what students should know and should be able to do. Educators and policymakers will need to look to
many sources of information and opinion for explanations of these levels of performance. Among the
possible explanations, several factors should not be overlooked. First, students may not be learning enough
in school to reach the achievement levels. In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education
warned that "the educational foundations of our society are being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that
threatens our very future."15 In 1990, the President and the Governors committed the Nation to six goals
for education, the third of which called for American students to "leave grades four, eight, and twelve
having demonstrated competency in challenging subject matter." The political leaders of this Nation are
dissatisfied with the performance of American students. These NAEP fmdings confirm that a great many
American students are not yet performing at the high standards embodied in the achievement levels.
Second, some students may not be reaching the higher achievement levels because schools may not be
teaching the elements of mathematics that are included on the NAEP assessment, and because the
assessment may not be covering some elements of mathematics included in the school curriculum. No
assessment or test can cover all the different areas of mathematics that are taught in school. The content
coverage of the NAEP mathematics assessment was set by a consensus approach. Teachers, curriculum
specialists, subject matter specialists, local school administrators, parents, and members of the general public
actively participated in deciding what are the most important elements of mathematics to be included in the
15
National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk. (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1983).
In 1988, then-Secretary Bennett reported that the "precipitous downward slide of previous decades has been arrested, and we
have begun the long climb back to reasonable standards." (p. 1 in American Education: Making it Work (Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, 1988).)
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
29
3 9
Vitgin Islands
assessment and for students to learn.'6 Since 1990, the content coverage of the NAEP mathematics
assessment has been moving toward closer alignment with the curriculum and evaluation standards
recommended by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM).17 The 1992 assessment has a
greater emphasis on geometry and algebra and functions and less emphasis on numbers and operations than
assessments prior to 1990. Included among the items are some constructed-response problem-solving
questions that assess higher-level thinking skills that multiple-choice question formats cannot normally
measure. The 1994 assessment will be even more closely aligned with the NCTM standards. Other
evidence from NAEP, presented later in this report, indicates that many schools and teachers have not yet
begun to follow the approach to teaching mathematics recommended by NCTM.
Third, the Basic, Proficient, and Advanced achievement levels reflect high performance standards for the
1992 NAEP mathematics scale. The establishment of achievement levels depends on securing a set of
informed judgments of expectations for student educational performance and on summarizing the individual
ratings into collective judgments. These expectations reflect the Board's policy defmitions, which require
that students at the central, Proficient level demonstrate "competency over challenging subject matter." The
resulting standards are rigorous. The higher any standard is set, the fewer students will be able to reach
that standard.
As measures of performance, both average proficiency scores and percentages of students who score above
the critical achievement levels on the NAEP scale provide a valuable overall depiction of students'
mathematics achievement. In order to present a closer look at how well students know particular areas of
mathematics, the next section presents student performance in six content areas.
16
17
30
NAEP Mathematics Consensus Project. Mathematics Framework for the 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress.
(Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board, 1992).
Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. (Reston, Va.: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
1989).
4 0
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Vugin Islands
CONTENT AREA PERFORMANCE
As previously indicated, the questions comprising the Trial State Assessment covered the five content areas
of Numbers and Operations; Measurement; Geometry; Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability; Algebra
and Functions; and the area of Estimation. Estimation was measured using a special paced audiotape that
limited the amount of time students had to work on each question and made any direct calculations of
answers difficult. The information from the Estimation section is intended to supplement the data obtained
from the Numbers and Operations and the Measurement questions administered using the more traditional
paper-and-pencil or calculator approaches. Table 5A (average proficiency) and Table 5B (percentile
distribution) provide the Virgin Islands and national results for each content area and Estimation.
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990 vs 1992
Students in the Virgin Islands performed lower than students in the nation in all of the five
content areas and Estimation.
The area of Estimation was not included in the 1990 Trial State Assessment program.
Therefore, change in eighth-grade performance is provided only for the five content areas.
There was an improvement in student performance from 1990 to 1992 in the Virgin Islands
in Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
31
41
Vugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
TrIM State Assessment
1
TABLE 5A
Eighth-Grade Public-School Content
Area Performance
Grade 8
1990
1
1992
Proficiency
Proficiency
Content Area
Numbers and Opera !km
Virgin Islands
229 (1.0)
231 (1.0)
Nation
266 (1.3)
270 (0.9) >
Measurement
Virgin islands
216 (2.0)
211 (1.7)
Nation
258 (1.6)
264 (1.3) >
Geomeby
Virgin islands
223 (1.3)
222 (0.8)
Nation
259 (1.4)
262 (1.0)
Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability
Virgin Islands
196 (2.0)
214 (2.5) >
Nation
262 (1.6)
267 (1.2)
Algebra and Functions
Virgin islands
219 (1.5)
221 (1.2)
Nation
260 (1.3)
266 (1.1) >
Estimation
Virgin Islands
(--.-)
(--)
Nation
(--)
(--)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges fmm 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said
with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of
the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for
details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent
confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the
95 percent confidence level.
Estimation was not included in the 1990 Trial State Assessment.
32
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Virgin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Tr Ise State Auessetent
GRADE 8 1990
Numbers and Operations
Virgin Islands
Nation
Measurement
Virgin Islands
Nation
Geometry
Virgin Islands
Nation
Data Analysis, Statistics,
and Probability
Virgin Islands
Nation
Algebra and Functions
Virgin Islands
Nation
Estimation
Virgin Islands
Nation
GRADE 8 1992
Numbers and Operations
Virgin Islands
Nation
Measurement
Virgin Islands
Nation
Geometry
Virgin Islands
Nation
Data Analysis, Statistics,
and Probability
Virgin Islands
Nation
Algebra and Functions
Virgin Islands
Nation
Estimation
Virgin Islands
Nation
1
TABLE 5B
Percentiles of Mathematics Proficiency in Eighth.-
Grade Public Schools by Content Area
5th
10th
25th
SOth
75th
90th
95th
Percentile
Percentile
Percentile
Percentile
Percentile
Percentile
Percentile
181 (2.0)
206 (2.3)
160 (3.1)
185 (3.2)
177 (1.9)
199 (2.5)
126 (6.0)
191 (2.3)
167 (2.2)
199 (1.9)
(-.-)
190 (2.0)
209 (1.1)
228 (1.6)
248 (1.4)
266 (2.2)
278 (3.4)
220 (2.4)
242 (2.3)
267 (1.2)
291 (1.4)
309 (1.3)
320 (1.9)
173 (2.2)
193 (2.3)
216 (2.2)
238 (2.5)
259 (2.4)
271 (3.9)
202 (1.9)
230 (2.7)
259 (2.2)
288 (2.2)
312 (2.3)
326 (2.1)
187 (1.8)
204 (2.0)
224 (1.3)
241 (2.1)
258 (2.4)
267 (3.1)
213 (2.0)
236 (1.7)
260 (1.2)
284 (1.4)
303 (1.9)
316 (4.1)
142 (6.3)
168 (2.4)
195 (2.7)
224 (2.0)
252 (3.0)
268 (2.4)
207 (3.1)
234 (2.0)
264 (1.4)
292 (1.4)
313 (1.6)
326 (1.8)
179 (2.8)
197 (1.5)
218 (1.8)
239 (2.3)
260 (2.8)
275 (3.0)
212 (2.6)
235 (1.7)
261 (1.5)
286 (1.6)
308 (2.6)
322 (2.7)
- (--.-)
(--.-)
(---)
(--.-)
(--.-)
(--.-)
(--.-)
- (--.-)
(--.-)
- (--.-)
180 (1.4)
190 (1.5)
209 (1.7)
232 (1.7)
253 (1.3)
272 (1.7)
283 (1.6)
211 (1.5)
223 (0.8)
246 (0.9)
271 (1.3)
295 (1.0)
315 (1.4)
326 (1.5)
149 (4.4)
163 (4.0)
186 (2.9)
211 (2.2)
235 (2.2)
258 (2.4)
272 (2.6)
190 (2.1)
206 (1.3)
233 (1.4)
265 (1.6)
296 (1.6)
323 (2.8)
338 (1.9) >
175 (3.0)
186 (1.5)
203 (1.3)
222 (1.1)
241 (1.5)
258 (2.7)
268 (2.6)
204 (1.7)
216 (1.0)
238 (1.4)
262 (1.1)
286 (1.0)
307 (1.4)
318 (1.8)
155 (4.0)
196 (1.8)
161 (2.8)
204 (1.6)
189 (2.6)
221 (3.1)
>
168 (4.0) >
189 (2.9) >
214 (2.6) >
238 (2.3) >
260 (2.4)
273 (4.0)
212 (1.3)
238 (1.4)
268 (1.4)
297 (1.6)
320 (1.9)
333 (2.6)
176 (2.1)
197 (1.7)
222 (1.1)
245 (1.4)
267 (1.7)
281 (3.0)
218 (1.5)
240 (1.3)
266 (1.3)
291 (1.4)
314 (2.1)
327 (2.4)
199 (2.6)
215 (2.1)
231 (1.6)
249 (1.7)
263 (2.3)
272 (2.3)
232 (1.9)
250 (1.9)
271 (1.5)
290 (1.5)
305 (2.3)
314 (1.9)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with abou
95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors of the estimate forthe
sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for details).
If the notation >
appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation
< appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level. - Estimation
waS not included in the 1990 Trial State Assessment.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
33
43
Virgin Islands
CHAPTER 2
Mathematics Performance by Subpopulations
Many of the reforms recommended for mathematics education have emphasized the need to stress mathematics for
all students.'8 Nevertheless, assessment results consistently show lower achievement for subpopulations of students
who are less advantaged than their classmates.° The 1992 Trial State Assessment sheds further light on this by
reporting on the performance of various subgroups of the student population defined by race/ethnicity, type of
community, parents' education level, and gender.
RACE/ETHNICITY
The Trial State Assessment results can be compared according to racial/ethnic groups when the number of students
in a racial/ethnic group was sufficient in size to be reliably reported (at least 62 students). Table 6A (average
proficiency) and Table 6B (percentile distribution) present eighth-grade mathematics performance results for Black
and Hispanic students from the Virgin Islands.
In the Virgin Islands:
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990 vs 1992
Black students demonstrated higher average mathematics proficiency that did Hispanic
students.
The performance of Black and Hispanic students stayed about the same from 1990 to 1992.
18
Everybody Counts: A Report to the Nation on the Future of Mathematics Education, Lynn Steen, Ed. (Washington, DC: National
Research Council, National Academy Press, 1989).
19
34
Ina V.S. Mullis, John A. Dossey, Eugene H. Owen, and Gary W. Phillips.
The State of Mathematics Achievement NAEP's 1990
Assessment of the Nation and the Trial Assssment of the States. (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics,
1991).
4 4
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
THE NATION'S
TABLE 6A
Average Eighth-Grade Public-School
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mal Stale Awasment
Mathematics Proficiency by Race/Ethnicity
Grade 8
1990
1
1992
Proficiency
Proficiency
Virgin islands
Black
221 (1.1
224 (1.2)
Hispanic
209 (1.5)
213 (1.9)
Nation
Black
237 (2.8)
236 (1.3)
Hispanic
242 (2.8)
245 (1.3)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said
with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors of
the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for
details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent
confidence level.
If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the
95 percent confidence level.
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mal State Asseassmnt
GRADE 8 1990
Black
Virgin Islands
Nation
Hispanic
Virgin Islands
Nation
GRADE 8 1992
Black
Virgin Islands
Nation
Hispanic
Virgin Islands
Nation
1
TABLE 6B
Percentiles of Mathematics Proficiency in Eighth-
Grade Public Schools by Race/Ethnicity
5th
10th
25th'
50th
75th
90th
95th
Percentile
Percentile
Percentile
Percentile
Percentile
Percentile
Percentile
174 (3.0)
185 (1.8)
202 (1.8)
221 (1.6)
240 (1.5)
259 (2.8)
271 (3.3)
184 (5.3)
194 (7.5)
214 (5.3)
236 (1.7)
259 (3.0)
284 (3.5)
298 (3.2)
162 (5.4)
172 (5.5)
188 (3.5)
208 (1.1)
228 (6.9)
247 (3.4)
260 (5.9)
185 (2.5)
198 (2.5)
218 (2.9)
243 (5.5)
268 (2.3)
284 (2.3)
297 (6.1)
175 (1.7)
186 (2.4)
204 (1.5)
224 (2.0)
245 (1.7)
263 (1.8)
275 (2.1)
187 (3.0)
197 (2.1)
215 (1.7)
236 (1.6)
257 (1.5)
275 (3.4)
286 (3.8)
165 (3.2)
176 (3.6)
195 (3.5)
214 (3.3)
233 (2.8)
250 (5.0)
259 (3.3)
189 (2.3)
201 (1.8)
221 (1.6)
244 (2.0)
268 (1.8)
289 (1.5)
301 (4.8)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with
about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors of the estimate
for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for details).
If the
notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence
level.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
4 5
35
Virgin Islands
Table 7 presents mathematics performance by achievement levels. For the Virgin Islands:
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990 vs 1992
Relatively few of the Black students (1 percent) and none of the Hispanic Students (0
percent) were at or above the Proficient level.
About the same percentage of Black and Hispanic students were at or above the Proficient
level in 1992 as in 1990.
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mal State Assessment
TABLE 7
Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School
Mathematics Achievement by
Race/Ethnicity
Grade 8
1990
1992
At or Above Achranced Level
Percentage
Percentage
Virgin Islands
Black
0 (0.1)
0 (0.1)
Hispanic
0 (0.0
0 (0.0)
Nation
Black
0 (0.3)
0 (0.4)
Hispanic
0 (0.2)
1 (0.3)
At or Above Proficient Level
Virgin islands
Black
1 (0.5)
1 (0.4)
Hispanic
0 (0.3)
0 (0.1)
Nation
Black
6 (1.3)
3 (0.8)
Hispanic
6 (1.6)
7 (0.9)
At or Above Basic Level
Virgin Islands
Black
11 (1.3)
14 (1.5)
Hispanic
6 (1.5)
6 (1.7)
Nation
Black
27 (3.1)
26 (2.2)
Hispanic
36 (3.1)
37 (2.1)
Below Basic Level
Virgin Islands
Black
89 (1.3)
86 (1.5)
Hispanic
94 (1.5)
94 (1.7)
Nation
Black
73 (3.1)
74 (2.2)
Hispanic
64 (3.1)
63 (2.1)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each
population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing
two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for details). If the notation > appears, it
signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation
< appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
36
4 6I'HE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Vugin Islands
TYPE OF COMMUNITY
Table 8A (average proficiency) and Table 813 (percentile distribution) present the mathematics proficiency
results for eighth-grade students attending public schools in areas classified as "other" and extreme rural areas.
(These are the "type of community' groups in the Virgin Islands with student samples large enough to be
reliably reported.)
In the Virgin Islands:
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990 vs 1992
Students attending schools in areas classified as "other" demonstrated about the same
average mathematics proficiency as did students attending schools in extreme rural areas.
Students in areas classified as "other" and extreme rural areas performed about the same in
1992 as in 1990.
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARO
1992
MN State Assessmat
map
TABLE 8A
Average Eighth-Grade Public-School
Mathematics Proficiency by Type of
Community
Grade 8
1990
1992
Proficiency
Proficiency
Virgin Islands
Extreme rural
209 (1.9)
215 (2.4)
Other
221 (0.9)
218 (1.3)
Nation
Extreme rural
256 (4.5)1
267 (4.6)1
Other
262 (1.8)
268 (1.2) >
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estima ed statistics appear in parentheses. It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within I 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value
for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
I Interpret with caution
the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated statistic.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
4 7
37
Virgin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT rai-i-Cp
CARD
GRADE 8 1990
Extreme rural
Virgin Islands
Nation
Other
Virgin Islands
Nation
GRADE 8 1992
Extreme rural
Virgin Islands
Nation
Other
Virgin Islands
Nation
1
TABLE 8B
Percentiles of Mathematics Proficiency in Eighth-Grade
Public Schools by Type of Community
5th
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
95th
Percentile
Percentile
Percentile
Percentile
Percentile
Percentile
Percentile
165 ( 3.3)
175 (2.2)
190 (2.0
208 (2.0)
226 (4.6)
246 (5.6)
256 (6.9)
201 (16.5)
215 (5.6)
236 (7.1)
256 (4.9)
280 (5.1)
299 (3.4)
308 (8.0)
172 (3.1)
184 (1.7)
201 (1.5)
220 (1.1)
240 (1.7)
259 (2.6)
272 (2.6)
200 (3.2)
213 (2.0)
237 (2.4)
263 (1.8)
288 (1.5)
306 (2.1)
318 (2.5)
167 (8.8)
175 (5.2)
193 (2.6)
215 (1.8)
238 (3.8)
258 (2.7)
266 (5.5)
211 (7.2)
223 (3.2)
245 (6.6)
268 (5.1)
290 (4.4)
309 (5.7)
319 (4.6)
171 (4.9)
181 (2.6)
199 (1.8)
218 (1.8)
238 (1.5)
256 (1.1)
267 (7.4)
208 (2.5)
221 (1.2) >
243 (1.9)
268 (1.8)
293 (1.2)
313 (1.4)
325 (1.6)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value
for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
Table 9 presents mathematics performance by achievement levels. In the Virgin Islands:
Grade 8
1992
1Grade 8
1990 vs 1992
None of the students attending schools in areas classified as "other" (0 percent) and none
of the students in extreme rural areas (0 percent) were at or above the Proficient level.
About the same percentage of students in areas classified as "other" and extreme rural areas
were at or above the Proficient level in 1992 as in 1990.
4 8
38
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Vagin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
UM State Amassment
TABLE 9
Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School
Mathematics Achievement by Type of
Community
Grade 8
1990
1992
At or Abatis Advanced Level
Percentage
Percentage
Virgin Islands
Extreme rural
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
Other
0 (0.1
0 (0.0)
Nation
Extreme rural
1 (0.7)l
2 (1.0)
Other
2 (0.4)
3 (0.5)
At or Above Profnt Level
Virgin Islands
Extreme rural
0 (0.4
0 (0.6)
Other
1 (0.5)
0 (0.3)
Nation
Extreme rural
13 (3.6)1
21 (3.8)1
Other
19 (1.3)
24 (1.2) >
At or Above Bask Lew!
Virgin islands
Extreme rural
5 (1.8)
11 (2.5)
Other
12 (1.4)
10 (1.1)
Nation
Extreme rural
50 (5.7)1
65 (6.2)1
Other
58 (2.0)
63 (1.6)
Bebw Bask Level
Virgin Islands
Extreme rural
95 (1.8)
89 (2.5)
Other
88 (1.4)
90 (1.1)
Nation
Extreme rural
50 (5.7)1
35 (6.2)1
Other
42 (2.0)
37 (1.6)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population
of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must
use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992
was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value
for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level. ! Interpret with cautionthe nature of the sample
does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated statistic.
PARENTS' EDUCATION LEVEL
Previous NAEP fmdings have shown that students whose parents are better educated tend to have higher
mathematics proficiency. Table 10A (average proficiency) and Table 10B (percentile distribution) show the
mathematics proficiency results for eighth-grade public-school students who reported that at least one parent
graduated from college, at least one parent had some education after high school, at least one parent graduated
from high school, neither parent graduated from high school, and they did not know their parents' education level.
(These are the groups with student samples large enough to be reliably reported.) In the Virgin Islands:
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
39
4 9
Virgin Islands
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990 vs 1992
Students who reported that at least one parent graduated from college demonstrated lower
average mathematics proficiency than did students who reported that at least one parent had
some education after high school but about the same proficiency as did students who
reported that at least one parent graduated from high school or neither parent graduated
from high school and higher proficiency than did students who reported that they did not
know their parents' education level.
Students who reported that at least one parent graduated from college, at least one parent
had some education after high school, at least one parent graduated from high school,
neither parent graduated from high school, or they did not know their parents' education
level performed about the same in 1992 as in 1990.
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
TAM State Aueument
TABLE 10A
Average Eighth-Grade Public-School
Mathematics Proficiency by Parents'
Education
Grade 8
1990
1
1992
Virgin islands
Proficiency
Proficiency
Graduated college
220 (1.4)
224 (2.0)
Some education after high school
228 (2.8)
232 (2.4)
Graduated high school
220 (1.6)
221 (1.9)
Did not finish high school
211 (2.8)
219 (2.4)
I don't know
216 (1.9)
217 (1.4)
Nation
Graduated college
274 (1.6)
279 (1.4)
Some education after high school
267 (1.6)
270 (1.2)
Graduated high school
255 (1.5)
256 (1.4)
Did not finish high school
241 (2.0)
248 (1.8)
I don't know
240 (3.3)
251 (1.7) >
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value
for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
40
s o
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Trugin Islands
NE NATION'S
REPORT
CARO
1992
TM State Assessment
GRADE 8 1990
College graduate
Virgin Islands
Nation
Some college
Virgin Islands
Nation
High school
graduate
Virgin Islands
Nation
High school
nongraduate
Virgin Islands
Nation
I don't know
Virgin Islands
Nation
GRADE 8 1992
College graduate
Virgin Islands
Nation
Some college
Virgin Islands
Nation
High school
graduate
Virgin Islands
Nation
High school
nongraduate
Virgin Islands
Nation
I don't know
Virgin Islands
Nation
1
TABLE 10B
Percentiles of Mathematics Proficiency in Eighth-
Grade Public Schools by Parents' Education
Sth
10th
25th
SOth
75th
90th
95th
Percentile
Percentile
Percentile
Percentile
Percentile
Percentile
Percentile
172 (1.6)
182 (2.8)
200 (1.3)
217 (2.2)
238 (2.7)
211 (6.2)
226 (2.4)
252 (1.2)
277 (1.5)
299 (1.8)
181 (5.3)
193 (7.2)
208 (4.8)
228 (3.0)
246 (2.4)
208 (5.9)
222 (6.4)
245 (1.9)
268 (1.9)
289 (2.2)
171 (4.8)
181 (3.3)
200 (2.4)
219 (2.1)
240 (2.8)
200 (3.1)
212 (3.4)
233 (2.2)
255 (1.3)
277 (3.6)
164 (9.0)
175 (6.3)
192 (2.4)
210 (3.1)
231 (5.6)
192 (9.2)
204 (4.7)
223 (1.9)
242 (4.0)
261 (3.9)
170 (5.7)
180 (5.0)
199 (2.5)
217 (1.9)
234 (1.8)
182 (9.5)
191 (6.6)
215 (4.2)
240 (3.2)
265 (4.0)
260
318
(4.7)
(2.8)
276
329
(4.9)
(1.7)
266 (5.7)
275 (13.7)
305 (1.4)
320 ( 4.9)
259 (3.7)
272 (1.8)
297 (1.5)
306 (1.8)
249 (4.0)
260 (4.1)
277 (3.0)
290 (4.5)
253 ( 4.2)
263 ( 5.3)
287 (10.0)
298 (14.1)
176 (4.9)
186 (2.3)
204 (3.7)
223 (3.4)
244 (2.3)
262 (1.6)
277 (3.5)
215 (2.1)
230 (2.4)
254 (2.7)
281 (2.3)
305 (2.4)
324 (1.5)
334 (1.7)
180 (5.3)
195 (2.5)
213 (2.7)
233 (8.6)
252 (6.0)
272 (3.7)
280 (4.3)
213 (3.6)
226 (2.0)
248 (1.8)
269 (2.4)
293 (1.4)
314 (1.7) >
325 (2.6)
172 (3.9)
183 (3.8)
200 (2.6)
222 (3.8)
242 (3.3)
259 (2.2)
272 (4.0)
200 (5.2)
212 (2.6)
233 (1.2)
257 (1.5)
280 (1.7)
168 (3.4)
179 (3.2)
200 (6.9)
219 (2.9)
239 (4.4)
199 (2.3)
208 (2.4)
226 (1.5)
245 (3.6)
270 (2.2)
712 (3.6)
180 (2.7)
197 (1.6)
217 (1.7)
237 (2.4)
193 (3.0)
206 (3.6)
227 (2.8)
249 (3.3)
274 (4.1)
298 (2.0)
310 (2.3)
257 (2.6)
267 (8.2)
291 (3.3)
302 (5.1)
256 (5.7)
265 (24.9)
296 (3.1)
307 ( 5.5)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with
about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate
for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for details). If the
notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence
level.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
51
41
Vugin Islands
Table 11 presents mathematics proficiency by achievement levels. In the Virgin Islands:
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990 vs 1992
Achievement was at or above the Proficient level for 2 percent of the students who reported
that at least one parent graduated from college, 2 percent of the students who reported that
at least one parent had some education after high school, 0 percent of the students who
reported that at least one parent graduated from high school, 0 percent of the students who
reported that neither parent graduated from high school, and 0 percent of the students who
reported that they did not know their parents' education level.
About the same percentage of students who reported that at least one parent graduated
from college, at least one parent had some education after high school, at least one parent
graduated from high school, neither parent graduated from high school, or they did not
know their parents' education level were at or above the Proficient level in 1992 as in 1990.
42
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
5 2
Vitgin Islands
ME NATION'S
TABLE 11
Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School Mi thematics
REPOARD
RT
Achievement by Parents' Education
C
1992
Teal State Assessment
Grade 8
1990
1992
Advanced Level
Percentage
Percentage
At or Above
Virgin Islands
Graduated college
0 (0.2)
0 (0.3)
Some education after high school
1 (0.8)
0 (0.0)
Graduated high school
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
Did not finish high school
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
I don't know
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
Nation
Graduated college
4 (0.9)
6 (1.0)
Some education after high school
3 (0.9)
3 (0.7)
Graduated high school
0 (0.4)
1 (0.4)
Did not finish high school
0 (0.1)
1 (0.5)
I don't know
0 (0.2)
1 (0.6)
At or Above Roficlent Lobel
Virgin islands
Graduated college
2 (0.9)
2 (0.8)
Some education after high school
2 (1.4)
2 (1.5)
Graduated high school
1 (0.4)
0 (0.5)
Did not finish high school
0 (0.2)
0 (0.2)
I don't know
0 (0.1)
0 (0.4)
Nation
Graduated college
30 (2.0)
36 (1.9)
Some education after high school
20 (2.6)
24 (1.5)
Graduated high school
12 (1.4)
13 (1.3)
Did not finish high school
4 (1.4)
8 (1.8)
I don't know
7 (2.1)
11 (1.9)
At or Above Basic Level
Virgin Islands
Graduated college
12 (1.8)
15 (1.7)
Some education after high school
16 (3.9)
22 (4.3)
Graduated high school
12 (1.7)
11 (1.6)
Did not finish high school
6 (1.6)
11 (2.4)
I don't know
8 (2.1)
10 (1.9)
Nation
Graduated college
71 (1.8)
74 (1.4)
Some education after high school
64 (2.2)
67 (1.9)
Graduated high school
49 (2.1)
51 (2.2)
Did not finish high school
32 (3.8)
39 (3.3)
I don't know
34 (3.7)
43 (2.5)
Below Bask Level
Virgin islands
Graduated college
88 (1.8)
85 (1.7)
Some education after high school
84 (3.9)
78 (4.3)
Graduated high school
88 (1.7)
89 (1.6)
Did not finish high school
94 (1.6)
89 (2.4)
I don't know
92 (2.1)
90 (1.9)
Nation
Graduated college
29 (1.8)
26 (1.4)
Some education after high school
36 (2.2)
33 (1.9)
Graduated high school
51 (2.1)
49 (2.2)
Did not finish high school
68 (3.8)
61 (3.3)
I don't know
66 (3.7)
57 (2.5)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each
population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing
two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for details). If the notation > appears, it
signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation
< appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
5 3
43
Vugin Islands
GENDER
Table 12A (average proficiency) and Table 12B (percentile distribution) provide the mathematics proficiency
results by gender.
In the Virgin Islands there appears to be no significant difference in the average proficiency
of eighth-grade males and females.
In the Virgin Islands, the average mathematics proficiency for eighth-grade females in 1992
was higher than the average mathematics proficiency for eighth-grade females in 1990. The
average mathematics proficiency for eighth-grade males in 1992 was about the same as the
average mathematics proficiency for eighth-grade males in 1990.
ME NATION'S
REPORT
CARO
1992
Trial State Assessment
1step
TABLE 12A
Average Eighth-Grade Public-School
1
Mathematics Proficiency by Gender
Grade 8
1990
1992
Virgin islands
Proficiency
Proficiency
Male
221 (1.1)
221 (1.5)
Female
217 (1.3)
222 (1.4) >
Nation
Male
262 (1.7)
266 (1.2)
Female
261 (1.4)
267 (1.2) >
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details).
If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value
for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
4
44
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Trugin Islands
GRADE 8 1990
Male
Virgin Islands
Nation
Female
Virgin Islands
Nation
GRADE 8 1992
Male
Virgin Islands
Nation
Female
Virgin Islands
Nation
1
TABLE 12B
Percentiles of Mathematics Proficiency in Eighth-
Grade Public Schools by Gender
Sth
10th
25th
SOth
75th
90th
95th
Percentile
Percentile
I
Percentile
I
Percentile
Percentile
Percentile
Percentile
173 (3.3)
183 (2.2)
201 (1.2)
220 (1.6)
241 (1.2)
260 (4.9)
273 (5.1)
199 (3.4)
213 (2.6)
237 (2.2)
263 (1.3)
289 (2.1)
310 (2.0)
322 (2.6)
169 (1.7)
180 (2.8)
197 (1.6)
216 (1.5)
235 (1.3)
254 (2.3)
266 (3.2)
201 (1.7)
215 (3.5)
237 (2.2)
263 (1.4)
286 (1.4)
304 (1.6)
316 (3.2)
172 (2.7)
182 (2.6)
201 (2.6)
221 (2.3)
242 (1.9)
260 (1.5)
272 (1.6)
204 (2.6)
217 (1.7)
240 (2.1)
266 (1.4)
293 (0.9)
313 (2.0)
325 (1.8)
174 (2.6)
184 (2.0)
202 (2.2)
221 (1.4)
242 (1.6) >
261 (3.0)
273 (3.0)
206 (1.3)
219 (1.8)
241 (1.3)
267 (1.4)
292 (1.3)
314 (1.7) >
325 (2.3)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details).
If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value
for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
45
5 5
Vugin Islands
Table 13 presents mathematics performance by achievement levels.
There was no significant difference between the percentages of eighth-grade males and females in
the Virgin Islands who were at or above the Proficient level (1 percent for females and 1 percent
for males).
Also in the Virgin Islands, about the same percentage of eighth-grade males were at or above the
Proficient level in 1992 as in 1990. About the same percentage of eighth-grade females were at or
above the Proficient level in 1992 as in 1990.
NE NATION'S
REPORT
TABLE 13
Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics
CARD
1992
Mal State Assesamat
Achievement by Gender
Grade 8
1990
1992
At or Above Advanced Level
Percentage
Percentage
Virgin islands
Male
0 (0.2)
0 (0.1)
Female
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
Nation
Male
3 (0.5)
3 (0.6)
Female
2 (0.5)
3 (0.6)
At or Above Proficient Lew!
Virgin Islands
Male
1 (0.8)
1 (0.5)
Female
1 (0.2)
1 (0.4)
Nation
Male
21 (1.6)
24 (1.3)
Female
18 (1.3)
23 (1.4) >
At or Above Basic Level
Virgin islands
Male
12 (1.6)
12 (1.2)
Female
9 (1.3)
13 (1.6)
Nation
Male
57 (1.9)
61 (1.4)
Female
57 (1.6)
61 (1.3)
Below Basic Level
Virgin islands
Male
88 (1.6)
88 (1.2)
Female
91 (1.3)
87 (1.6)
Nation
Male
43 (1.9)
39 (1.4)
Female
43 (1.6)
39 (1.3)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each
population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing
two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for details).
If the notation > appears, it
signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation
< appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
46
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
5 6
Virgin Islands
CONTENT AREA PERFORMANCE
Tables 14A-14F provide a summary of content area performance by race/ethnicity, type of community,
parents' education level, and gender.
ME NATION'S
REPORT m=12
CARD
TABLE 14A
Eighth-Grade Public-School Performance in
Numbers and Operations by Subpopulation
Grade 8
1990
1992
TOTAL
Proficiency
Proficiency
Virgin Islands
229 (1.0)
231 (1.0)
Nation
266 (1.3)
270 (0.9) >
RACE/ETHNICTIY
Black
Virgin Islands
232 (1.1)
234 (1.3)
Nation
245 (2.9)
243 (1.3)
Hispanic
Virgin Islands
217 (1.6)
223 (1.9)
Nation
248 (2.7)
249 (1.6)
TYPE OF COMMUNITY
Extreme rural
Virgin Islands
219 (2.8)
226 (2.1)
Nation
260 (4.5)1
271 (3.9)1
Other
Virgin Islands
231 (1.0)
228 (1.5)
Nation
266 (1.7)
271 (1.1)
PARENIS' EDUCATION
Graduated college
Virgin Islands
231 (2.3)
233 (2.6)
Nation
278 (1.5)
281 (1.3)
Some education after high school
Virgin Islands
238 (3.0)
242 (3.0)
Nation
271 (1.5)
273 (1.1)
Graduated high school
Virgin Islands
230 (1.9)
233 (1.7)
Nation
259 (1.6)
261 (1.4)
Did not finish high school
Virgin Islands
221 (2.5)
228 (2.7)
Nation
247 (2.1)
253 (1.8)
I don't know
Virgin Islands
226 (2.1)
226 (2.1)
Nation
243 (3.4)
254 (1.7)
GENDER
Male
Virgin Islands
229 (1.6)
230 (1.3)
Nation
266 (1.6)
269 (1.1)
Female
Virgin Islands
228 (1.2)
233 (1.6)
Nation
266 (1.4)
271 (1.1) >
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to SOO. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value
for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
! Interpret with caution-the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated statistic.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
47
Vugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mal State Assessment
1
TABLE 14E
Eighth-Grade Public-School Performance in
Measurement by Subpopulation
Grade 8
1990
1
1992
TOTAL
Proficiency
Proficiency
Virgin Islands
216 (2.0)
211 (1.7)
Nation
258 (1.6)
264 (1.3) >
MCE/ETHNICITY
Black
Virgin Islands
218 (2.1)
213 (2.0)
Nation
227 (3.3)
225 (1.9)
Hispanic
Virgin Islands
208 (2.8)
202 (3.1)
Nation
237 (3.2)
241 (1.9)
TYPE OF COMMUNITY
Extreme rural
Virgin Islands
211 (2.7)
205 (3.7)
Nation
253 (4.8)1
265 (5.5)1
Other
Virgin Islands
217 (2.2)
208 (2.3)
Nation
258 (2.2)
266 (1.6) >
PARENTS EDUCATION
Graduated college
Virgin Islands
216 (2.8)
216 (2.8)
Nation
272 (2.0)
279 (2.3)
Some education after high school
Virgin Islands
225 (2.9)
224 (4.4)
Nation
264 (2.1)
267 (1.5)
Graduated high school
Virgin Islands
214 (3.0)
211 (2.7)
Nation
249 (1.9)
251 (1.8)
Did not finish high school
Virgin Islands
209 (4.0)
208 (2.8)
Nation
236 (2.7)
243 (2.6)
I don't know
Virgin Islands
218 (3.1)
201 (3.4) <
Nation
234 (3.8)
248 (2.2) >
GENDER
Male
Virgin Islands
221 (3.3)
213 (2.1)
Nation
262 (2.1)
266 (1.4)
Female
Virgin Islands
211 (2.1)
208 (2.2)
Nation
254 (1.6)
262 (1.7) >
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details).
If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value
for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
I Interpret with caution-the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated statistic.
48
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
5 8
Vogin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mai State Assessment
TABLE 14C
Eighth-Grade Public-School Performance in
Geometry by Subpopulation
Grade 8
1990
1992
TOTAL
Proficiency
Proficiency
Virgin Islands
223 (1.3)
222 (0.8)
Nation
259 (1.4)
262 (1.0)
RACE/E7HNICRY
Black
Virgin Islands
225 (1.2)
225 (1.1)
Nation
235 (3.2)
233 (1.7)
Hispanic
Virgin Islands
213 (2.5)
214 (3.0)
Nation
242 (2.7)
245 (1.4)
TYPE OFCOMMUN/TY
Extreme rural
Virgin Islands
215 (1.8)
215 (3.4)
Nation
255 (4.3)1
261 (5.2)1
Other
Virgin Islands
225 (1.4)
220 (1.0)
Nation
259 (1.7)
263 (1.2)
PARENTS' EDUCA7ION
Graduated college
Virgin Islands
222 (2.7)
221 (2.5)
Nation
271 (1.7)
272 (1.4)
Some education after high school
Virgin Islands
227 (3.3)
228 (2.6)
Nation
262 (1.9)
264 (1.4)
Graduated high school
Virgin Islands
224 (3.1)
224 (2.3)
Nation
253 (1.5)
254 (1.4)
Dld not finish high school
Virgin Islands
221 (4.2)
220 (2.0)
Nation
241 (2.1)
246 (1.4)
I don't know
Virgin Islands
221 (1.7)
220 (1.7)
Nation
243 (3.3)
248 (1.7)
GENDER
Male
Virgin Islands
224 (1.9)
223 (1.6)
Nation
260 (1.7)
262 (1.2)
Female
Virgin Islands
221 (1.2)
221 (1.1)
Nation
258 (1.4)
262 (1.2)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value
for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
! Interpret with caution-the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated statistic.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
59°
49
Virgin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT is-Irp'
CARD
1
1992
Tdal Stab Assessment
TABLE 14D
Eighth-Grade Public-School Performance in
Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability
by Subpopulation
Grade 8
1990
I
1992
TOTAL
Proficiency
Proficiency
Virgin Islands
196 (2.0)
214 (2.5) >
Nation
262 (1.6)
267 (1.2)
RACE/EIHNICITY
Black
Virgin Islands
203 (2.4)
216 (2.3) >
Nation
232 (3.2)
234 (1.7)
Hispanic
Virgin Islands
183 (3.0)
208 (3.9) >
Nation
239 (3.2)
241 (1.7)
TYPE OF COMMUNIN
Extreme rural
Virgin Islands
183 (2.3)
206 (5.0) >
Nation
257 (5.5)1
269 (5.9)1
Other
Virgin Islands
200 (2.4)
210 (2.3) >
Nation
262 (2.3)
268 (1.4)
PARENIS' EDUCATION
Graduated college
Virgin Islands
198 (3.6)
219 (3.8) >
Nation
276 (1.9)
281 (1.8)
Some education after high school
Virgin Islands
216 (5.3)
232 (4.2)
Nation
269 (2.0)
273 (1.6)
Graduated high school
Virgin Islands
199 (2.5)
209 (3.1)
Nation
254 (2.0)
254 (1.8)
Did not finish high school
Virgin Islands
184 (6.3)
212 (4.3) >
Nation
238 (2.3)
246 (2.5)
I don't know
Virgin Islands
192 (4.1)
209 (2.5) >
Nation
236 (4.0)
248 (2.2)
GENDER
Male
Virgin Islands
200 (3.0)
212 (2.6) >
Nation
263 (2.0)
266 (1.4)
Female
Virgin Islands
193 (2.0)
216 (3.1) >
Nation
262 (1.7)
267 (1.3)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value
for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
! Interpret with caution-the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated statistic.
50
6 0
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Viggin Is Ian&
THE NATION'S
TABLE 14E
Eighth-Grade Public-School Performance in
REPOARD
RT I
Algebra nd Functions by Subpopulation
C
1992
Trial State Assaumeat
Grade 8
1990
1992
TOTAL
Proficiency
Proficiency
Virgin Islands
219 (1.5)
221 (1.2)
Nation
260 (1.3)
266 (1.1) >
RACE/EIHNICITY
Black
Virgin Islands
221 (1.6)
224 (1.7)
Nation
239 (2.6)
237 (2.1)
Hispanic
Virgin Islands
212 (3.0)
211 (2.9)
Nation
241 (3.0)
243 (1.5)
7WE OF COMMUNI1Y
Extreme rural
Virgin Islands
207 (2.8)
215 (3.2)
Nation
255 (4.2)1
266 (4.0)1
Other
Virgin Islands
222 (1.6)
216 (1.8)
Nation
261 (1.6)
267 (1.4) >
PARENTS EDUCATION
Graduated college
Virgin Islands
221 (2.3)
225 (3.2)
Nation
273 (1.6)
278 (1.7)
Some education after high school
Virgin Islands
227 (4.7)
230 (3.7)
Nation
265 (1.7)
268 (1.7)
Graduated high school
Virgin Islands
222 (2.1)
220 (3.2)
Nation
254 (1.5)
255 (1.4)
Did not finish high school
Virgin Islands
210 (3.0)
217 (3.0)
Nation
240 (1.8)
248 (1.9)
don't know
Virgin Islands
215 (2.6)
219 (2.7)
Nation
239 (3.2)
251 (1.6) >
GENDER
Male
Virgin Islands
221 (2.2)
221 (2.3)
Nation
260 (1.6)
264 (1.3)
Female
Virgin Islands
217 (1.9)
222 (1.2)
Nation
261 (1.4)
267 (1.4) >
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value
for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
! Interpret with caution-the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated statistic.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
G
51
Vilgin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Teel State Assessment
ragp
TABLE 14F
Eighth-Grade Public-School Performance
in Estimation by Subpopulation
1992 Grade 8
TOTAL
RACE/EMNICITY
Black
Virgin Islands
Nation
Virgin Islands
Nation
Hispanic
Virgin Islands
Nation
TYPE OF COMMUNITY
Extreme rural
Virgin Islands
Nation
Other
Virgin Islands
Nation
PARENTS' EDUCATION
Graduated college
Virgin Islands
Nation
Some education after high school
Virgin Islands
Nation
Graduated high school
Virgin Islands
Nation
Did not finish high school
Virgin Islands
Nation
I don't know
Virgin Islands
Nation
GENDER
Male
Virgin Islands
Nation
Female
Virgin islands
Nation
Proficiency
231 (1.5)
269 (1.5)
233 (1.3)
248 (3.5)
226 (2.9)
252 (2.6)
232 (2.4)
273 (5.9)!
228 (2.0)
268 (2.0)
235 (2.6)
279 (1.9)
240 (2.6)
273 (2.9)
230 (1.7)
261 (2.4)
228 (2.3)
258 (3.3)
227 (2.5)
252 (3.5)
232 (1.9)
272 (1.7)
231 (1.7)
266 (1.5)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is
within t 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of
the difference (see Procedural Appendix for details). Estimation was not included in the 1990 Trial State Assessment.
!
Interpret with cautionthe nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated
statistic.
52
6 2 THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
'Pugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Trial State Assessment
PART TWO
Finding a Context for Understanding
Students' Mathematics Proficiency
In its landmark undertaking to set standards for mathematics curriculum and teaching, the National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) made numerous recommendations for reforming how teachers teach
the subject and how students learn it.2° According to NCTM, to improve the nation's mathematics
proficiency, all students must learn more, and often different, mathematics, and instruction in mathematics
must be significantly revised.
The results of the Trial State Assessment can be used to monitor students' progress in achieving the NCTM
recommendations and to examine both school and home contexts for educational support. The public-
school students participating in the 1992 Trial State Assessment, their mathematics teachers, and the
principals or other administrators in their schools were asked to complete questionnaires on policies,
instruction, and programs. These student, teacher, and school data help to describe some of the current
practices and emphases in mathematics education, illuminate some of the factors that appear to be related
to eighth-grade public-school students' proficiency in the subject, and provide an educational context for
understanding data on student achievement. The data from the questionnaires also provide a means to
examine changes in policies, instruction, and programs at the eighth-grade level between 1990 and 1992 for
those states and territories that participated in both Trial State Assessment Programs.
The questionnaire results provide a broad picture of educational practices prevalent in American schools
and classrooms. It is important to note that the NAEP data cannot establish cause-and-effect links between
various contextual factors and students' mathematics proficiency. However, the results do provide
information about important relationships between the contextual factors and proficiency.
Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. (Reston, Va: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
1989); Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics.
(Reston, Va: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1991).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
53
6 3
Vugin Islands
In many instances, NAEP findings reveal that educational researchers' suggestions about what strategies
work best to help students learn often go unheeded. For example, NCTM has recommended that teachers
employ more hands-on activities and student-centered learning techniques. However, as described in
Chapter 4, and similar to the findings from the 1990 NAEP mathematics assessment, NAEP data indicate
that classroom work is still dominated by textbooks or worksheets. Also, it is widely recognized that home
environment has an enormous impact on future academic achievement. Yet, as shown in Chapters 3 and 7,
and again similar to the findings from the 1990 NAEP mathematics assessment, large proportions of
students still report spending much more time each day watching television than doing mathematics
homework.
The contextual information provided in Part Two of this report focuses on five major areas: instructional
content, instructional practices and experiences, teacher characteristics, school characteristics and context,
and conditions outside of school that affect instruction and learning. Part Two consists of five chapters.
Chapter 3 discusses instructional content and its relationship to students' mathematics proficiency. Chapter
4 focuses on instructional practices -- how instruction is delivered. Chapter 5 is devoted to calculator and
computer use, while Chapter 6 provides information about teachers and Chapter 7 examines students' home
support for learning.
54
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
6 4
Vugin Iskutds
CHAPTER 3
What are Students Taught in Mathematics?
According to NCTM, curricular reform in grades kindergarten through 4 is necessary and must address
both the content and emphasis of the curriculum as well as approaches to instruction. The need for reform
is equally great in grades 5 through 8, where the current curriculum also does not match NCTM's ideal.n
This chapter focuses on curricular and instructional content issues in Virgin Islands public schools and their
relationship to students' proficiency.
Table 15 provides a profile of the eighth-grade public schools' policies and practices in the Virgin Islands.
Some of the salient results obtained from the school and teacher questionnaires are:
According to the schools, all of the eighth-grade students in the Virgin Islands (100
percent) were in public schools where mathematics was identified as a special priority.
This percentage increased from 1990 to 1992 (52 percent in 1990).
According to their mathematics teachers, 31 percent of the eighth-grade students
received four or more hours of mathematics instruction per week.
According to their teachers, about half of the eighth-grade students (55 percent) were
typically taught mathematics in a class that was grouped by mathematics ability. This
percentage increased from 1990 to 1992 (45 percent in 1990).
According to the schools in the Virgin Islands, 81 percent of the eighth-grade students
were taught mathematics by teachers who teach only one subject. The percentage of
eighth-grade public-school students who were so taught mathematics stayed about the
same from 1990 to 1992 (81 percent in 1990).
According to the schools in the Virgin Islands, many of the eighth-grade students (80
percent) could take an algebra course in eighth grade for high-school course
placement or credit. This percentage of students decreased from 1990 to 1992 (85
percent in 1990).
21
Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. (Reston, Va: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
1989); Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics. (Reston, Va: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1991).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
55
6 5
Viigin Islands
THE NATION'S
TABLE 15
I
Mathematics Policies and Practices in
REPORT
CARD
1992
Trial State Assessmeat
Virgin Islands Eighth-Grade Public Schools
Grade 8
1990
1992
Percentage of students in public schools that identified mathematics as
receiving special emphasis in school-wide goals and objectives, instruction, in-
service training, etc.
Percentage
Percentage
Virgin islands
52 (0.2)
100 (0.0) >
Nation
63 (5.9)
68 (3.7)
Percentage of public-school students who are offered a course in algebra for
high school course placement or credit
.
Virgin islands
85 (0.1)
80 (0.1) <
Nation
78 (4.6)
79 (3.8)
Percentage of students in public schools who are taught by teachers who
teach only mathematics
Virgin islands
81 (0.2)
81 (0.1)
Nation
91 (3.3)
89 (2.3)
Percentage of students in public schools who are assigned to a mathematics
class by their ability in mathematics
Virgin islands
45 (0.6)
55 (0.8) >
Nation
63 (4.0)
61 (2.6)
Percentage of students in public schools who receive four or more hours of
mathematics instruction per week
Virgin islands
(-.-)
31 (0.9)
Nation
(-.-)
32 (3.1)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parenthesis. It can be said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each
population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing
two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for details).
If the notation > appears, it
signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation
< appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
-- Comparisons to 1990 are not appropriate because of a change in the format of the question. In 1990, the students' mathematics
teachers were asked to specify the number of hours they spent providing mathematics instruction each week. In 1992, the form of the
question was changed.
Instead of asking the teachers to specify the number of hours, the teachers were asked to select from three
options: that they spent (a) Two and one-half hours or less; (b) More than two and one-half hours but less than four hours; or (c) Four
hours or more providing mathematics instruction per week.
CURRICULUM COVERAGE
Course taking is related to mathematics proficiency because students who take more mathematics classes tend
to learn more mathematics than those students who take fewer classes in this subject, or because students who
are more proficient tend to take more mathematics courses and, in some cases, because the higher-achieving
56
6 6
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Viigin Is
students are tracked into more advanced courses.n
To place students' mathematics proficiency in a
curriculum-related context, it is necessary to examine the extent to which students in the Virgin Islands are
taking mathematics courses. Typically, all eighth graders, with very few exceptions, take mathematics. However,
the eighth graders take different types of mathematics courses, as shown in Table 16.
o
A greater percentage of students in the Virgin Islands were taking eighth-grade
mathematics (78 percent) than were taking a course in pre-algebra or algebra (20
percent). Across the nation, however, about the same percentage of students were
taking eighth-grade mathematics (50 percent) as were taking a course in pre-algebra
or algebra (47 percent).
o
Students in the Virgin Islands who were enrolled in eighth grade mathematics courses
exhibited lower average mathematics proficiency than did those who were in pre-
algebra or algebra courses.
A greater percentage of students in the Virgin Islands were taking algebra or pre-
algebra in 1992 than in 1990. Across the nation as well, a greater percentage of
students were taking algebra or pre-algebra in 1992 than in 1990.
Further, from Table A16 (Page 126) in the Data Appendix.n
o
About the same percentage of eighth-grade females (20 percent) as males (19
percent) in the Virgin Islands were enrolled in pre-algebra or algebra courses.
o
In the Virgin Islands, 19 percent of Black students and 21 percent of Hispanic
students were enrolled in pre-algebra or algebra courses.
o
In addition, 16 percent of students attending schools in areas classified as "other" and
38 percent of students in extreme rural areas were enrolled in pre-algebra or algebra
courses.
23
Ina V.S. Mullis, John A. Dossey, Eugene H. Owen, and Gary W. Phillips. The State of Mathematics Achievement: NAEP's 1990
Assessment of the Nation and the Trial Assessment of the States. (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics,
1991).
For every table in the body of the report that includes estimates of average proficiency, the Data Appendix provides a
corresponding table presenting the results for the four subpopulations
race/ethnicity, type of community, parents' education
level, and gender.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
57
6 7
Vugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT pimp
CARD
1092
TAM State Assessment
TABLE 16
I
Eighth-Grade Students' Reports on the
Mathematics Class They are Taking
Grade 8
1990
1992
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
What kind of mathematics class are you taking this year'?
Eighth-grade Mathematics
.
Virgin Islands
88 (0.7)
78 (0.9)<
217 (1.0)
219 (1.2)
Nation
62 (2.1)
50 (2.9) <
251 (1.4)
253 (1.5)
Pre-algebra
Virgin islands
3 (0.5)
14 (0.7)>
231 (2.5)
Nation
19 (1.9)
28 (2.5)>
271 (2.6)
271 (1.7)
Algebra
Virgin islands
6 (0.6)
6 (0.5)
238 (5.1)
249 (3.9)
Nation
15 (1.2)
19 (1.2)
298 (2.4)
299 (2.0)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value
for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
The percentages may not total 100 percent because a small number of students
reported taking other or no mathematics classes.
*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
MATHEMATICS HOMEWORK
To examine the relationship between homework and proficiency in mathematics, the teachers of the
assessed students were asked to report the amount of mathematics homework they assigned each day, and
students were asked to report the amount of time they spent on mathematics homework each day. Table 17
reports the teachers' and students' responses.
58
6 8
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Vugin Is !wads
As reported by their mathematics teachers:m
In the Virgin Islands, 1 percent of the eighth-grade students were not assigned any
mathematics homework each day.
In addition, 14 percent of the eighth-grade students in the Virgin Islands were
assigned an hour or more of mathematics homework each day.
The greatest percentage of eighth-grade students were assigned 30 minutes of
mathematics homework each day.
According to the students:
In the Virgin Islands, 8 percent of the eighth-grade students did not spend any time
each day on mathematics homework (either none was assigned or the students did not
do the homework).
In addition, 18 percent of the eighth-grade students in the Virgin Islands spent an
hour or more on mathematics homework.
Average mathematics proficiency was higher for students in the Virgin Islands who
spent 30 minutes on mathematics homework than for students who spent an hour or
more on mathematics homework each day.
From 1990 to 1992, there was no difference in the percentage of eighth-grade students
who did not spend any time each day on mathematics homework (8 percent in 1990
and 8 percent in 1992).
From 1990 to 1992, there was no difference in the percentage of eighth-grade students
who spent an hour or more each day on mathematics homework (18 percent in 1990
and 18 percent in 1992).
24
Comparisons between 1990 and 1992 are not possible for the teacher responses because of changes in the form of the questions
that they were asked.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
59
6 9
Virgin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
TABLE 17
Teachers' and Students' Reports on the
Amount of Time Students Spend on
Mathematics Homework Each Day
mop
1992
Mal State Assassmant
Grade 8
1990
1992
Teacher
I
Student
Teacher
I
Student
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
About how much time do students
spend on (are they assigned)
None
Virgin Islands
(--.-)
8 (0.7)
1 ( 0.2)
8 (0.8)
(--.-)
218 (3.9)
*** (**.*)
221 (2.8)
Nation
(--.-)
9 (0.8)
3 ( 0.7)
8 (0.4)
(--.-)
251 (2.9)
232 ( 4.1)1
253 (2.4)
15 minutes
Virgin islands
(--.-)
33 (1.5)
19 ( 0.8)
32 (1.5)
(--.-)
219 (1.7)
216 ( 1.5)
222 (1.7)
Nation
(--.-)
31 (2.0)
29 ( 2.1)
28 (0.8)
(--.-)
264 (1.7)
262 ( 1.8)
268 (1.4)
30 minutes
Virgin islands
(-4
26 (1.1)
46 ( 1.2)
29 (1.3)
(--.-)
222 (1.7)
219 ( 1.7)
227 (1.6)
Nation
(-.-)
32 (1.2)
48 ( 2.6)
35 (0.7)>
(--.-)
263 (1.9)
267 ( 1.5)
268 (1.3)
45 minutes
Virgin Islands
(-.-)
16 (1.1)
20 ( 0.9)
14 (1.1)
(--.-)
217 (2.1)
232 ( 2.1)
221 (2.8)
Nation
(--.-)
16 (1.0)
15 ( 2.0)
16 (0.6)
(--.-)
266 (2.1)
282 ( 3.8)
269 (1.7)
An hour or more
Virgin Islands
(--.-)
18 (0.9)
14 ( 0.9)
18 (1.0)
(--.-)
216 (2.2)
218 ( 4.1)
216 (1.8)
Nation
(-.-)
12 (1.1)
4 ( 0.9)
13 (0.7)
(-.-)
258 (3.0)
286 ( 5.4)1
265 (2.0)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value
for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level. --- Comparisons between 1990 and 1992 are not possible for the teacher responses
because of changes in the form of the questions that they were asked. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow
accurate determination of the variability of this estimated statistic. "* Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than
62 students).
60
7 0
ME 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Vugin Islands
INSTRUCTIONAL EMPHASIS
According to NCTM, the teaching of computation and other traditional skills has dominated the
mathematics curriculum at grades kindergarten through 4, while at grades 5 through 8, a repetition of
topics, instructional approaches, and presentation have prevailed. In contrast, NCTM recommends that
students be taught a broad range of mathematics topics, including number concepts, computation,
estimation, functions, algebra, statistics, probability, geometry, and measurement.25
Because the Trial State Assessment questions were designed to measure students' knowledge, skills, and
understandings in various content areas -- regardless of the type of mathematics class in which students
were enrolled -- the teachers of the assessed students were asked a series of questions about the amount of
emphasis they gave to each of five mathematics topics during the school year. Each topic corresponded to
one of the five mathematics content areas included in the Trial State Assessment -- Numbers and
Operations; Measurement; Geometry; Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability; and Algebra and Functions.
The teachers' responses provide an indication of students' opportunity to learn those topics recommended
by NCTM.
The teachers were asked whether they were placing "heavy," "moderate," or "little or no" emphasis on each
topic. Table 18 provides the results for this analysis and the average student proficiency in each content
area.
From Table 18:
In the Virgin Islands, 71 percent of the eighth-grade students had mathematics
teachers who placed heavy instructional emphasis on Numbers and Operations, 9
percent had teachers who placed heavy instructional emphasis on Measurement, 2
percent had teachers who placed heavy instructional emphasis on Geometry, 13
percent had teachers who placed heavy instructional emphasis on Data Analysis,
Statistics, and Probability, and 25 percent had teachers who placed heavy instructional
emphasis on Algebra and Functions.
Comparisons between 1990 and 1992 for two content areas -- Numbers and
Operations and Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability -- are not appropriate
because of changes in the form of the questions that the students' mathematics
teachers were asked. Between 1990 and 1992, there was a decrease in the percentage
of eighth-grade students whose teachers placed heavy instructional emphasis on
Measurement, Geometry, and Algebra and Functions.
25
Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. (Reston, Va: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
1989).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
61
71
iiirgin Islands
NE NATION'S
REPORT pimp
CARD
1992
TdaI State Assessment
TABLE 18
Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given
to Specific Mathematics Content Areas
Grade 8
1990
1992
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Teacher 'emphasis° categories by content areas
Numbers and Operations
Virgin Islands
Heavy emphasis
(--.-)
71 (1.1)
(--.-)
228 (1.0)
Little or no emphasis
(--.-)
5 (0.5)
(--.-)
265 (4.4)
Nation
Heavy emphasis
(--.-)
76 (1.9)
(--.-)
269 (1.2)
Little or no emphasis
(--.-)
4 (0.8)
(--.-)
283 (6.9)!
Measumment
Virgin Islands
Heavy emphasis
35 (0.7)
9 (0.6) <
218 (2.9)
210 (4.8)
Little or no emphasis
19 (0.8)
19 (0.7)
215 (3.7)
216 (3.2)
Nation
Heavy emphasis
17 (3.0)
16 (2.0)
250 (4.8)
255 (3.0)
Little or no emphasis
33 (4.0)
15 (1.6)<
272 (3.9)
281 (3.4)
Geomeby
Virgin islands
Heavy emphasis
11 (0.2)
2 (0.4) <
218 (3.9)
*** (**.*)
Little or no emphasis
51 (1.0)
31 (0.9)<
222 (1.5)
218 (2.3)
Nation
Heavy emphasis
28 (3.8)
18 (2.6)
259 (3.0)
263 (2.3)
Little or no emphasis
21 (3.3)
11 (1.4)<
264 (5.4)
264 (4.4)
Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability
Virgin islands
Heavy emphasis
(--.-)
13 (0.8)
(--.-)
217 (5.3)
Little or no emphasis
(--.-)
40 (1.1)
(--..-)
210 (2.9)
Nation
Heavy emphasis
(--.)
11 (1.7)
(--.-)
273 (4.8)
Little or no emphasis
(--.-)
30 (2.0)
(--.-)
268 (2.6)
Algebra and Functions
Virgin Islands
Heavy emphasis
47 (0.8)
25 (0.8)<
229 (2.2)
230 (2.5)
Little or no emphasis
19 (0.7)
12 (0.5)<
211 (3.6)
230 (2.6)>
Nation
Heavy emphasis
46 (3.6)
46 (2.1)
275 (2.6)
282 (2.1)
Little or no emphasis
20 (3.0)
13 (1.5)
244 (3.2)
241 (2.8)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details).
If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value
for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level. The percentages may not total 100 percent because the "Moderate Emphasis" category
is not included. - Comparisons between 1990 and 1992 for two content areas (Numbers and Operations and Data Analysis, Statistics,
and Probability) are not appropriate because of changes in the form of the questions that the students' mathematics teachers were asked.
! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated statistic.
*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
62
7 2
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
'Pugin Islands
SUMMARY
The opportunity for all students to experience the components of mathematic training as outlined in the
NCTM Standards is at the heart of NCTM's recommendations for quality mathematics programs.26 The
information on curriculum coverage, mathematics homework, and instructional emphasis has revealed the
following:
According to their mathematics teachers, 31 percent of the eighth-grade students
received four or more hours of mathematics instruction per week.
According to their mathematics teachers, many of the eighth-grade students (80
percent) could take an algebra course in eighth grade for high-school course
placement or credit. This percentage of students decreased from 1990 to 1992 (85
percent in 1990).
Students in the Virgin Islands who were enrolled in eighth-grade mathematics courses
exhibited lower average mathematics proficiency than did those who were in pre-
algebra or algebra courses.
According to their mathematics teachers, the greatest percentage of eighth-grade
students were assigned 30 minutes of mathematics homework each day.
In grade 8, average mathematics proficiency was higher for students in the Virgin
Islands who spent 30 minutes on mathematics homework than for students who spent
an hour or more on mathematics homework each day.
In the Virgin Islands, 71 percent of the eighth-grade students had mathematics
teachers who placed heavy instructional emphasis on Numbers and Operations, 9
percent had teachers who placed heavy instructional emphasis on Measurement, 2
percent had teachers who placed heavy instructional emphasis on Geometry, 13
percent had teachers who placed heavy instructional emphasis on Data Analysis,
Statistics, and Probability, and 25 percent had teachers who placed heavy instructional
emphasis on Algebra and Functions.
2.6
Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. (Reston, Va: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
1989).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
63
73
,
'Pugin Islands
CHAPTER 4
How is Mathematics Instruction Delivered?
Mathematics instruction has been characterized by extensive use of textbooks and worksheets.27 However,
according to NCTM, what a student learns depends to a great degree on how he or she has learned it, and
classroom instruction needs to be more student centered.2/3
To provide information about instructional delivery, public-school students and teachers participating in the Trial
State Assessment were asked to report on the use of various teaching and learning activities in their
mathematics classrooms.
Students' and teachers' responses to a series of questions on their mathematics
instruction provide an indication of the extent to which teachers are making use of student-centered activities.
RESOURCES
NCTM recommends well-equipped classrooms and instruction reflecting the vitality of mathematics.29 To
examine the availability of resources, the assessed students' teachers were asked about the extent to which
they were able to obtain all of the resources they needed.
From Table 19 and Table A19 (Page 142) in the Data Appendix:
In the Virgin Islands, 0 percent of the eighth-grade students had mathematics teachers
who reported getting all of the resources they needed, while 82 percent of the eighth-
grade students were taught by teachers who got some or none of the resources they
needed.
In grade 8, 0 percent of students attending schools in areas classified as "other" and
0 percent of students in extreme rural areas had mathematics teachers who got all the
resources they needed.
By comparison, in grade 8, 100 percent of students in areas classified as "other" and
100 percent of students in extreme rural areas had mathematics teachers who got
some or none of the resources they needed.
27
Thomas A. Romberg and Thomas P. Carpenter. "Research on Teaching and Learning Mathematics: Two Disciplines of
Scientific Inquiry," in Handbook of Research on Teaching (Third Edition), M.C. Wittrock, Ed. (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1980).
28
Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics, (Reston, Va: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989).
29
Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. (Reston, Va: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
1989); Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics. (Reston, Va: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1991).
64
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
7 4
Vitgin Islands
Between 1990 and 1992, there was no difference in the percentage of eighth-grade
students whose teachers got all the resources they needed (0 percent in 1990 and 0
percent in 1992). There was an increase in the percentage of students whose teachers
got some or none of the resources they needed (66 percent in 1990 and 82 percent
in 1992).
THREPORT
E NATION'S
TABLE 19
1
Teachers' Reports on the Availability of
CARO
1992
Trial State Assessment
Resources
Grade 8
1990
1992
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Which of the following statements is true about how well supplied you
are by your school system with the instructional materials and other
resources you need to teach your class?
I get all the resources I need.
Virgin islands
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
*** (**.*)
***
Nation
13 ( 2.4)
13 ( 2.3)
264 ( 3.7)
272 ( 3.4)
I get most of the resources I need.
Virgin islands
34 ( 0.6)
18 ( 0.5)<
224 ( 1.5)
241 ( 2.4)>
Nation
56 ( 4.0)
53 ( 2.5)
265 ( 2.0)
269 ( 1.1)
I get some or none of the resources I need.
Virgin Islands
66 ( 0.6)
82 ( 0.5)>
217 ( 1.3)
216 ( 1.1)
Nation
31 ( 4.2)
33 ( 1.9)
260 ( 3.1)
261 ( 1.5)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value
for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
65
7 5
Vugin Islands
COLLABORATING IN SMALL GROUPS
NCTM and others have recommended the use of small groups and cooperative-learning strategies for
mathematics teaching in the middle grades.3° Mathematics is suited for group discussion because students
in groups can learn multiple strategies for solving the same problems and discuss the merits of different
solutions to problems. Further, the positive affective impact of working together mirrors the use of
mathematics in the workplace and reduces mathematics anxiety.m To examine the extent to which small
groups are being used, students and their mathematics teachers were asked about the prevalence of these
practices (Table 20).
According to their mathematics teachers:
About one quarter of the eighth-grade students (29 percent) worked mathematics
problems in small groups at least weekly; less than half in grade 8 never or hardly
ever worked mathematics problems in small groups (34 percent).
A smaller percentage of eighth-grade students in 1992 compared to 1990 worked
mathematics problems in small groups at least weekly (29 percent in 1992 and 53
percent in 1990).
A greater percentage of eighth-grade students in 1992 compared to 1990 never or
hardly ever worked mathematics problems in small groups (34 percent in 1992 and
12 percent in 1990).
According to students:
In the Virgin Islands, 39 percent of the eighth-grade students worked mathematics
problems in small groups at least weekly; 45 percent reported never or hardly ever
working mathematics problems in small groups.
A greater percentage of eighth-grade students in 1992 compared to 1990 worked
mathematics problems in small groups at least weekly (39 percent in 1992 and 34
percent in 1990).
A smaller percentage of eighth-grade students in 1992 compared to 1990 never or
hardly ever worked mathematics problems in small groups (45 percent in 1992 and
51 percent in 1990).
30
David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson. "Using Cooperative Learning in Math," in Cooperative Learning in Mathematics, Neil
Davidson, Ed. (Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company); Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School
Mathematics. (Reston, Va: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989); Professional Standards for Teaching
Mathematics. (Reston, Va: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1991).
31
Ina V.S. Mullis, John A. Dossey, Eugene H. Owen, and Gary W. Phillips. The State of Mathematics Achievement NAEP's 1990
Assessment of the Nation and the Trial Assessment of the States.
(Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics,
1991).
66
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
7 6
Trugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Thal State Assessment
TABLE 20
Teachers' and Students' Reports on the
Frequency of Small-Group Work
Grade 8
1990
1992
Teacher
I
Student
Teacher
I
Student
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
About how often do students work in small
groups?
At least weekly
Virgin islands
.
53 (0.8)
34 (1.4)
29 (1.0)<
39 (1.1)>
213 (1.5)
214 (1.4)
215 (2.1)
220 (1.3)>
Nation
50 (4.4)
28 (2.5)
51 (2.6)
36 (1.3)>
260 (2.2)
258 (2.7)
269 (1.6)>
265 (1.5)
Less than once a week
Virgin Islands
36 (0.7)
16 (0.7)
37 (1.0)
15 (0.8)
233 (1.4)
225 (1.7)
222 (1.5)<
230 (1.9)
Nation
43 (4.1)
28 (1.4)
32 (2.6)
26 (1.0)
264 (2.5)
267 (1.9)
266 (2.2)
270 (1.4)
Never or hardly ever
Virgin Islands
12 (0.6)
51 (1.2)
34 (0.8)>
45 (1.1)<
220 (2.1)
220 (0.9)
224 (1.8)
221 (1.5)
Nation
8 (2.0)
44 (2.9)
17 (2.2)>
38 (1.8)
279 (5.5)1
262 (1.5)
267 (2.9)
266 (1.3)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is withinI 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details).
If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value
for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated statistic.
USING MATHEMATICAL OBJECTS
Regular use of concrete materials and tools can have a significant effect on both student achievement and
attitudes toward mathematics.32 To examine the use of mathematical objects, students and their
mathematics teachers were asked to report on the frequency with which they used mathematical objects
such as measuring instruments or geometric solids. Table 21 summarizes these data.
According to their mathematics teachers, more than half of the eighth-grade students
in the Virgin Islands (64 percent) never or hardly ever used mathematical objects; 0
32
E.!. Sowell. "Effects of Manipulative Materials in Mathematim Instruction," Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20
(5). (November, 1989). pp. 498-505.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
67
7 7
Virgin Islands
percent in eighth grade used these objects at least weekly.
According to the students, more than half of the eighth-grade students in the Virgin
Islands never or hardly ever used mathematical objects; 17 percent in eighth grade
used these objects at least weekly.
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Teal State Aueesmeat
TABLE 21
Teachers' and Students' Reports on the
Use of Mathematical Objects
Grade 8
1992
Teacher
Student
About how often do students work with measuring instruments or
geometric solids?
At least weekly
Virgin islands
Nation
Less than once a week
Virgin islands
Nation
Never or hardly ever
Virgin islands
Nation
0 ( 0.0)
***
7 (1.1)
270 (3.7)
36 ( 0.8)
214 ( 1.2)
50 ( 3.3)
265 ( 1.5)
64 ( 0.8)
225 ( 1.5)
42 ( 3.3)
271 ( 2.1)
Percentage
and
Proficiency
17 ( 0.9)
215 ( 2.0)
20 ( 1.2)
263 ( 1.7)
14 ( 1.0)
227 ( 2.2)
27 ( 1.1)
272 ( 1.4)
68 ( 0.8)
223 ( 1.2)
52 ( 1.6)
265 ( 1.1)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within I 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details).
Comparisons to 1990 are not appropriate because of a change in the wording or format of the question.
***
Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
MATERIALS FOR MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTION
Results from the 1990 NAEP mathematics assessment confirmed that high percentages of eighth-grade
public-school students in the Virgin Islands frequently worked mathematics problems from textbooks or
worksheets. The results from the 1992 assessment indicate that these materials continue to play a major
role in mathematics teaching and learning.
68
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
7 8
Vitgin Islands
Regarding the frequency of textbooks usage, according to the students' mathematics teachers (Table 22 and
Table A22A [Page 152] in the Data Appendix):
In the Virgin Islands, 89 percent of the eighth-grade students were assigned
problems from a mathematics textbook almost every day; 0 percent in eighth grade
worked textbook problems less than weekly.
In grade 8, textbooks were used almost every day by 79 percent of students
attending schools in areas classified as "other" and 100 percent of students in
extreme rural areas.
Comparing eighth-grade students' mathematics teachers' responses in 1990 with
1992, a greater percentage of students in 1992 (89 percent) than in 1990 (84
percent) used textbooks almost every day.
According to the students themselves (Tables 22 and A22B [Page 154] in the Data Appendix):
In the Virgin Islands, 81 percent of the eighth-grade students were assigned
problems from a mathematics textbook almost every day; 4 percent in eighth grade
worked textbook problems less than weekly.
In grade 8, textbooks were used almost every day by 76 percent of students
attending schools in areas classified as "other" and 92 percent of students in
extreme rural areas.
Comparing eighth-grade students' responses in 1990 with 1992, a greater
percentage of students in 1992 (81 percent) than in 1990 (73 percent) used
textbooks almost every day.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
69
7 9
Virgin Islands
NE NATION'S
TABLE 22
Teachers' and Students' Reports on the
REPORT
CARD rag
1992
Tdal Stab Assessment
Frequency of Mathematics Textbook Use
Grade 8
1990
1992
Teacher
I
Student
Teacher
I
Student
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
About how often do students do
problems from textbooks?
At least weekly
Virgin Islands
84 ( 0.9)
73 (1.4)
89 ( 0.8)>
81 ( 0.8)>
223 ( 1.0)
221 (1.2)
223 ( 1.2)
223 ( 1.3)
Nation
62 ( 3.4)
74 (1.9)
82 ( 1.6)>
84 ( 1.0)>
267 ( 1.8)
267 (1.3)
271 ( 1.3)
270 ( 1.1)
Less than once a week
Virgin Islands
15 ( 0.9)
21 (1.1)
11 ( 0.8)<
15 ( 0.5)<
207 ( 2.3)
216 (1.5)
207 ( 2.5)
218 ( 2.1)
Nation
34 ( 3.2)
20 (1.2)
15 ( 1.6)<
11 ( 0.8)<
255 ( 3.0)
249 (1.8)
256 ( 2.4)
251 ( 1.9)
Never or hardly ever
Virgin Islands
1 (0.0)
6 (0.7)
0 ( 0.0)
4 ( 0.5)<
*** (**.*)
204 (3.5)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
4 ( 1.3)
6 (1.0)
3 ( 0.7)
5 ( 0.4)
***
241 (6.0)
248 ( 6.0)1
245 ( 2.6)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value
for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower
than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow
accurate determination of the variability of this estimated statistic. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer
than 62 students).
Next, examining the frequency of worksheet usage, according to the students' mathematics teachers (Table
23 and Table A23A [Page 156] in the Data Appendix):
Relatively few of the eighth-grade students did problems from worksheets almost
every day; about one quarter in grade 8 did worksheet problems less than weekly (27
percent).
In grade 8, worksheets were used ahnost every day by 11 percent of students attending
schools in areas classified as "other" and 0 percent of students in extreme ruralareas.
Comparing eighth-grade students' mathematics teachers' responses in 1990 and 1992,
a greater percentage of students in 1992 (5 percent) than in 1990 (2 percent) used
worksheets almost every day.
70
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
8 0
Vugin Islands
And, according to the students (Table 23 and Table A23B [Page 1581 in the Data Appendix):
Some of the eighth-grade students did problems from worksheets almost every day;
less than half in grade 8 did worksheet problems less than weekly (31 percent).
In grade 8, worksheets were used almost every day by 15 percent of students in areas
classified as "other" and 18 percent of students in extreme rural areas.
Comparing eighth-grade students' responses in 1990 with 1992, a greater percentage
of students in 1992 (18 percent) than in 1990 (9 percent) used worksheets almost
every day.
DIE NATION'S
TABLE 23
I
Teachers' and Students' Reports on the
REPORT rasp
CARD
1992
TAW State Asseument
Frequency of Mathematics Worksheet Use
Grade 8
1990
1992
Teacher
I
Student
Teacher
I
Student
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
About how often do students do
problems on wolksheets?
Almost every day
Virgin Islands
2 ( 0.2)
9 (0.7)
5 ( 0.4)>
18 (0.9)>
206 (2.2)
*** (**.*)
214 (2.2)>
Nation
5 ( 1.7)
17 (1.7)
12 ( 1.9)>
22 (1.4)
264 ( 5.3)1
247 (2.9)
259 ( 4.9)
256 (2.5)
At least once a week
Virgin islands
76 ( 0.6)
59 (1.5)
68 ( 0.8)<
51 (1.4)<
218 ( 1.2)
219 (1.2)
219 ( 1.3)
224 (1.5)>
Nation
63 ( 3.5)
46 (1.8)
54 ( 2.2)
42 (1.2)
257 ( 1.8)
260 (1.4)
266 (1.6)>
266 (1.4)>
Less than weekly
Virgin Islands
22 ( 0.6)
32 (1.3)
27 ( 0.8)>
31 (1.3)
232 ( 2.0)
223 (1.5)
227 ( 1.5)
224 (1.6)
Nation
32 ( 3.6)
37 (2.5)
35 ( 2.7)
36 (1.7)
274 ( 2.7)
272 (1.8)
273 (1.9)
273 (1.3)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errots of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within I 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value
for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated statistic. a" Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62
students).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
8 1
BEST COPY AVAILARLF
71
Virgin Islands
SUMMARY
An inspection of the availability and use of resources for mathematics education can provide insight into
how and what students are learning in mathematics. It appears that mathematics textbooks and worksheets
continue to play a major role in mathematics teaching. Although constant use of textbooks and worksheets
does not preclude effective instruction, and NAEP data cannot establish the quality of instruction
accompanying the use of materials, excessive reliance on textbooks and workbooks does indicate less
attention to various student-centered strategies.33
According to the students' mathematics teachers:
About one quarter of the eighth-grade students (29 percent) worked mathematics
problems in small groups at least weekly; less than half in grade 8 never or hardly
ever worked mathematics problems in small groups (34 percent).
In the Virgin Islands, more than half of the eighth-grade students never or hardly ever
used mathematical objects; 0 percent at grade 8 used these objects at least weekly.
In the Virgin Islands, 89 percent of the eighth-grade students were assigned problems
from a mathematics textbook almost every day; 0 percent in eighth grade worked
textbooks problems less than weekly.
Relatively few of the eighth-grade students did problems from worksheets almost
every day; about one quarter in grade 8 did worksheet problems less than weekly (27
percent).
And, according to the students:
In the Virgin Islands, 39 percent of the eighth-grade students worked mathematics
problems in small groups at least weekly; 45 percent in grade 8 reported never or
hardly ever working mathematics problems in small groups.
In the Virgin Islands, more than half of the eighth-grade students (68 percent) never
or hardly ever used mathematical objects; 17 percent at grade 8 used these objects at
least weekly.
In the Virgin Islands, 81 percent of the eighth-grade students were assigned problems
from a mathematics textbook almost every day; 4 percent in eighth grade worked
textbook problems less than weekly.
Some of the eighth-grade students (18 percent) did problems from worksheets almost
every day; less than half in grade 8 did worksheet problems less than weekly (31
percent).
33
Ina V.S. Mullis, John A. Dossey, Eugene H. Owen, and Gary W. Phillips. The State Mathematics Achievement: NAEP's 1990
Assessment of the Nation and the Trial Assessment of the States.
(Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics,
1991).
72
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
8
Vingin Islands
CHAPTER 5
How r Calculators and Co puters Used?
Recommendations for improving mathematics education often include more use of calculators and
computers.34 The NCTM initiatives describe the benefits provided by calculators and computers to replace
hand calculations and suggest that these instruments provide a basis for more complex problem-solving
situations that engage students in mathematics learning.
Consistent with the importance of using technology in mathematics instruction, NAEP provided scientific
calculators to eighth graders for portions of the Trial State Assessment and conducted brief training
exercises in their use prior to the assessment. Information was collected about students' understanding of
when to use a calculator as well as measuring whether they knew how to use a calculator. Additionally,
students, teachers, and administrators were asked whether calculators and computers were available in
school and how frequently they were used.
ACCESS TO AND USE OF CALCULATORS
Table 24 provides a profile of Virgin Islands eighth-grade public schools' policies with regard to calculator
use:
o
In eighth grade, a smaller percentage of students in the Virgin Islands (15 percent)
than in the nation (30 percent) had teachers who permitted unrestricted use of
calculators. In 1990, the percentage of eighth-grade students who had teachers who
allowed unrestricted use of calculators was 1 percent in the Virgin Islands and 18
percent in the nation.
In relation to 49 percent of eighth graders across the nation, 34 percent of the eighth-
grade students in the Virgin Islands had teachers who allowed calculators to be used
for tests.
Comparing eighth-grade responses in 1990 and 1992, the percentage of
eighth-grade students in the Virgin Islands who had teachers who allowed calculators
to be used for tests increased from 1990 to 1992 (3 percent in 1990 and 34 percent
in 1992).
In the Virgin Islands, 49 percent of eighth-grade students were in schools in which
they were given access to four-function calculators and 20 percent were in schools in
which they were given access to scientific calculators. Across the nation, these figures
were 66 percent for four-function calculators and 37 percent for scientific calculators.
In addition, in the Virgin Islands, 62 percent of eighth graders had mathematics
34
Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. (Reston, Va: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
1989); Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics. (Reston, Va: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1991);
Everybody Counts: A Report to the Nation on the Future of Mathematics Education, Lynn Steen, Ed. (Washington, DC: National
Research Council, National Academy Press, 1989).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
73
8 3
Virgin Islands
teachers who reported providing instruction to students in the use of four-function
calculators and 42 percent had teachers who reported providing instruction about
scientific calculators. Nationally, these figures were 64 percent and 37 percent of the
eighth-grade students, respectively.
ME NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Trial State Assewnent
mop
TABLE 24
Teachers' Reports on Policies about
Calculator Use
Grade 8
1990
1992
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage of students in public schools whose teachers permit the use
of calculators on tests
Virgin islands
3 ( 0.0)
34 ( 0.9)>
Nation
33 ( 4.5)
49 ( 3.1)>
Percentage of students in public schools whose teachers permit the
unrestricted use of calculators
Virgin islands
1 ( 0.0)
15 ( 0.7)>
Nation
18 ( 3.4)
30 ( 2.5)>
Percentage of students in public schools whose teachers report that
students have access to calculators ovened by the school
Virgin islands
25 ( 1.0)
(--.-)
Nation
56 ( 4.6)
(--.-)
Percentage of eighth-grade students in public schools whose teachers
report that students have access to four-functbn calculators owned by
the school
Virgin islands
(.-)
49 ( 1.2)
Nation
(.-)
66 ( 3.4)
Percentage of eighth-grade students in public schools whose teachers
report that students have access to scientific calculators owned by the
school
Virgin islands
(--.-)
20 ( 0.9)
Nation
(.-)
37 ( 3.3)
Percentage of eighth-grade students in public schools whose teachers
provide instruction in the use of four-function calculators
Virgin islands
(--.-)
62 ( 0.7)
Nation
(.-)
64 ( 2.4)
Percentage of eighth-grade students in public schools whose teachers
provide instruction in the use of scientific calculators
Virgin Islands
(.-)
42 ( 0.9)
Nation
(.-)
37 ( 3.3)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population
of interest, the value for the entire population is within I 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates,
one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the
value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it
signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1992 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
Item not asked
in this year.
74
8 4
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Vugin Islands
Both students and their mathematics teachers were also asked about the frequency of the use of calculators in
mathematics class. From Table 25:
According to the students' mathematics teachers, 39 percent of the eighth-grade
students used calculators at least weekly in mathematics class. By comparison, 38
percent in eighth grade never or hardly ever used a calculator. In 1990, 17 percent
of the eighth-grade students had mathematics teachers who reported that they used
calculators at least weekly and 46 percent had mathematics teachers who reported that
they never or hardly ever used calculators.
According to the students, 40 percent of the eighth graders used calculators at least
weekly in mathematics class.
By comparison, 46 percent in eighth grade never or
hardly ever used a calculator. In 1990, 23 percent of the eighth-grade students used
calculators at least weekly and 61 percent never or hardly ever used calculators.
THE NATION'S
TABLE 25
I
Teachers' and Students' Reports on the
REPORT nomp
CARD
1992
Teal State Asesument
Frequency of Calculator Use
Grade 8
1990
1992
Teacher
I
Student
Teacher
I
Student
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
About how often do students use a
calculatoi?
At least weekly
Virgin Islands
17 ( 1.0)
23 ( 1.1)
39 ( 1.0)>
40 ( 1.1)>
221 ( 1.9)
215 ( 1.9)
227 ( 1.5)>
226 ( 1.4)>
Nation
43 ( 4.6)
40 ( 3.1)
56 ( 3.0)
53 ( 2.1)>
269 ( 2.9)
266 ( 2.3)
274 ( 1.5)
272 ( 1.4)
Less than once a week
Virgin islands
37 ( 0.6)
16 ( 1.0)
23 ( 0.7)<
15 ( 0.8)
228 ( 1.6)
226 ( 2.1)
217 ( 1.7)<
225 ( 2.3)
Nation
38 ( 4.3)
21 ( 1.4)
21 ( 2.2)<
18 ( 0.9)
258 ( 2.3)
264 ( 2.0)
257 ( 2.3)
263 ( 1.6)
Never or hardly ever
Virgin Islands
46 ( 1.0)
61 ( 1.5)
38 ( 1.2)<
46 ( 1.0)<
214 ( 1.3)
219 ( 1.0)
217 ( 2.0)
217 ( 1.6)
Nation
18 ( 4.0)
39 ( 3.1)
23 ( 2.5)
29 ( 1.6)<
258 ( 4.6)!
257 ( 1.4)
263 ( 2.2)
259 ( 1.6)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details).
If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value
for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated statistic.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
8 5
75
Vugin Islands
THE AVAILABILITY OF COMPUTERS
Computers can be used in a wide variety of ways in mathematics classrooms. Although they may be most
frequently used for computational drill and practice, teachers can take full advantage of this technology by
using computers to teach graphs, spreadsheets, and extended investigations of mathematical ideas.35 The
computer has the potential to provide opportunities for problem solving using "hands-on" techniques and
also can be effective as a tool in small-group work.
NAEP asked students and teachers in public schools about the availability and use of computers in
mathematics instruction. As shown in Table 26.
Relatively few of the eighth-grade students (3 percent) had teachers who reported that
computers were available fin the classroom. The percentage of eighth-grade students
in the Virgin Islands who had teachers who reported that computers were available
in the classroom increased from 1990 to 1992 (1 percent in 1990 and 3 percent in
1992).
In the Virgin Islands, 11 percent of the eighth-grade students had teachers who
reported that the primary use of these computers was drill and practice. In addition,
0 percent of the eighth-grade students had teachers who reported that the primary use
was learning new topics in mathematics.
And, from Table 27:
According to the students' mathematics teachers, 0 percent of the eighth-grade
students used computers at least weekly in mathematics class. By comparison, 88
percent in eighth grade never or hardly ever used a computer. In 1990, 1 percent of
the eighth-grade students had mathematics teachers who reported that they used
computers at least weekly and 78 percent had mathematics teachers who reported that
they never or hardly ever used computers.
According to the students, 8 percent of the eighth graders used computers at least
weekly in mathematics class.
By comparison, 88 percent in eighth grade never or
hardly ever used a computer. In 1990, 7 percent of the eighth-grade students used
computers at least weekly and 89 percent never or hardly ever used computers.
35
Mary Male. "Cooperative Learning and Computers in the Elementary and Middle School Math Classroom," in Cooperative
Learning in Mathematics, Neil Davidson, Ed. (Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1990); Charlene Sheets
and M. Kathleen Heid. "Integrating Computers as Tools in Mathematics Curricula (Grades 9-13):
Portraits of Group
Interactions," in Cooperative Learning in Mathematics, Neil Davidson, Ed. (Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company, 1990).
76
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
8 6
Virgin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mal State Assessment
Rasp
TABLE 26
Teachers' Reports on the Availability and
Primary Use of Computers in Mathematics
Classrooms
Grade 8
1990
1992
Percentage
Percentage
Availability of Computers
Not available
Virgin Islands
58 ( 0.7)
71 ( 1.3)>
Nation
28 ( 4.2)
24 ( 2.2)
Available but difficult t o access
Virgin Islands
41 ( 0.7)
27 ( 1.2)<
Nation
50 ( 4.7)
56 ( 3.0)
Available within the classmom
Virgin islands
1 ( 0.0)
3 ( 0.4)>
Nation
22 ( 4.0)
19 ( 2.2)
Primary Use of Computers
Drill and practice
Virgin islands
(--.-)
11 ( 0.8)
Nation
(--.-)
22 ( 2.6)
Learning new topics in mathematics
Virgin islands
(.-)
0 ( 0.0)
Nation
(--.-)
8 ( 1.4)
DisplaOng and interpreting data
Virgin islands
(.-)
0 ( 0.0)
Nation
(--.)
9 ( 1.6)
I do not use computers
Virgin islands
(.-)
89 ( 0.8)
Nation
(-)
61 ( 2.8)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each
population of interest, the value for the entire population is within I 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing
two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for details).
If the notation > appears, it
signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation
< appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level. -
-- Item not asked in this year.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
8 7
77
Trugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
TABLE 27
Teachers' and Students' Reports on the
Frequency of Computer Use in
Mathematics Classrooms
mop
1992
Trial State Assessment
Grade 8
1990
1992
Teacher
I
Student
Teacher
1
Student
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
About how often do students use
a computer?
At least weeldy
Virgin islands
1
( 0.4)
7 ( 0.6)
0 ( 0.0)
8 ( 0.7)
209 ( 3.7)
*** (**.*)
224 ( 3.2)>
Nation
12 ( 3.5)
15 ( 1.2)
8 ( 1.3)
15 ( 0.9)
246 ( 5.2)1
248 ( 2.4)
252 ( 3.9)
254 ( 1.9)
Less than once a week
Virgin Islands
21 ( 0.9)
5 ( 0.5)
12 ( 0.7)<
4 ( 0.5)
213 ( 3.0)
*** (**.*)
217 ( 2.6)
*** (**.*)
Nation
34 ( 4.5)
14 ( 1.3)
18 ( 2.1)<
12 ( 0.8)
264 ( 3.1)
268 ( 2.8)
266 ( 2.3)
270 ( 2.2)
Neter or hardly ever
Virgin Islands
78 ( 1.0)
89 ( 0.9)
88 ( 0.7)>
88 (0.8)
222 ( 0.9)
220 ( 0.9)
221 ( 1.3)
222 ( 1.2)
Nation
54 ( 4.2)
70 ( 1.6)
74 ( 2.1)>
73 ( 1.3)
266 ( 2.2)
264 ( 1.4)
270 ( 1.4)
269 ( 1.0)>
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value
for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated statistic.
*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62
students).
WHEN TO USE A CALCULATOR
Part of the Trial State Assessment was designed to investigate whether students know when the use of a
calculator is helpful and when it is not. In 1992, there were 13 sections of mathematics questions in the
assessment at the grade 8 level. For three of the 13 sections, students were given calculators to use. The
test administrator provided the students with instructions and practice on how to use the calculator prior to
the assessment. During the assessment, students were allowed to choose whether or not to use the
calculator for each item in the calculator sections, and they were asked to indicate in their test booklets
whether they did or did not use it for each item. Because of the sampling methodology used for the Trial
State Assessment, not every student took all of the calculator sections. Some took two calculator sections,
some took one section, and some took none.
78
8 8
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Vugin Islands
Certain items in the calculator sections were defmed as "calculator-suitable" items -- that is, items for which
the calculator was useful but not required to determine the correct response. The remainder of the items
were "calculator-unsuitable" items -- items for which the use of the calculator was inappropriate. In total, at
eighth grade there were 23 calculator-suitable items and 12 calculator-unsuitable items across the three
sections.
To examine the characteristics of students who generally knew when the use of the calculator was helpful
and those who did not, the students who responded to one or two of the calculator sections were
categorized into two groups:
High -- students who used the calculator for at least 65 percent of the calculator-
suitable items and used the calculator for no more than one of the calculator-
unsuitable items.
Other -- students who used the calculator for less than 65 percent of the calculator-
suitable items or used it for more than one of the calculator-unsuitable items.
Thus, students in the "High" group used the calculator frequently and appropriately. Students in the "Other"
group used the calculator less frequently or inappropriately. The data presented in Table 28 and Table A28
(Page 168) in the Data Appendix indicate that:
A smaller percentage of eighth-grade students in the Virgin Islands were in the High
group (15 percent) than were in the Other group (85 percent).
At eighth grade, about the same. percentage of females as males were in the High
group (15 percent of females and 16 percent of males).
At eighth grade, 16 percent of Black students and 13 percent of Hispanic students
were in the High group.
Recall that "about the same" means that difference between these two groups, although it may appear large, is not statistically
significant.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
79
8 9
Virgin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mal State Assessment
TABLE 28
I
Students' Knowledge of Using Calculators
1992 Grade 8
°Calculator-Use° Group
High
Other
Virgin Islands
Nation
Virgin Islands
Nation
Percentage
and
Proficiency
15 ( 1.0)
230 ( 2.9)
26 ( 0.9)
280 ( 1.6)
85 ( 1.0)
220 ( 1.4)
74 ( 0.9)
260 ( 1.1)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within I 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details). Comparisons to 1990 are not appropriate because of the changing nature of the calculator-suitable and calculator-
unsuitable items and the changing nature of the definitions of the "High" and "Other" groups from 1990 to 1992. Students in the "High"
group used the calculator for at least 65 percent of the calculator-suitable items and used the calculator for no more than one of the
calculator-unsuitable items. Students in the "Other" group used the calculator for less than 65 percent of the calculator-suitable items
or used it for more than one of the calculator-unsuitable items.
SUMMARY
NCTM recommends that:36
*
Appropriate
calculators
(i.e.,
scientific
calculators
for
middle
school
and
scientific/graphing calculators for high school) should be available to all students at
all times.
O
A computer should be available in every classroom for demonstration purposes.
Every student should have access to a computer for individual and group work.
36
80
Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. (Reston, Va: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
1989); Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics. (Reston, Va: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1991).
9 0
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Viigin Islands
Students should learn to use the computer as a tool for processing information and
performing calculations to investigate and solve problems.
The data related to calculators and computers and their use show that:
In eighth grade, a smaller percentage of students in the Virgin Islands (15 percent)
than in the nation (30 percent) had teachers who permitted unrestricted use of
calculators.
In the Virgin Islands, 49 percent of eighth-grade students were in schools in which
they were given access to four-function calculators and 20 percenet were in schools
in which they were given access to scientific calculators. Across the nation, these
figures were 66 percent for four-function calculators and 37 percent for scientific
calculators.
In addition, in the Virgin Islands, 62 percent of eighth graders had
mathematics teachers who reported providing instruction to students in the use of
four-function calculators and 42 percent had teachers who reported providing
instruction about scientific calculators. Nationally, these figures were 64 percent and
37 percent of the eighth-grade students, respectively.
According to the students' mathematics teachers, 39 percent of the eighth-grade
students used calculators at least weekly in mathematics class.
By comparison, 38
percent in eighth grade never or hardly ever used a calculator. In 1990, 17 percent
of the eighth-grade students had mathematics teachers who reported that they used
calculators at least weekly and 46 percent had mathematics teachers who reported that
they never or hardly ever used calculators.
According to the students, 40 percent of the eighth graders used calculators at least
weekly in mathematics class.
By comparison, 46 percent in eighth grade never or
hardly ever used a calculator. In 1990, 23 percent of the eighth-grade students used
calculators at least weekly and 61 percent never or hardly ever used calculators.
Relatively few of the eighth-grade students (3 percent) had teachers who reported that
computers were available in the classroom. The percentage of eighth-grade students
in the Virgin Islands who had teachers who reported that computers were available
in the classroom increased from 1990 to 1992 (1 percent in 1990 and 3 percent in
1992).
In the Virgin Islands, 11 percent of the eighth-grade students had teachers who
reported that the primary use of these computers was drill and practice.
By
comparison, 0 percent of the eighth-grade students had teachers who reported that
the primary use was learning new topics in mathematics.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
81
9 1
Vugin Islands
CHAPTER 6
Who is Teaching Eighth-Grade Mathematics?
Teachers have a vital function in improving students' mathematics learning. Thus, it is of interest to
examine the educational background, experience, and certification of the teachers who are teaching eighth-
grade mathematics in public schools. As shown in Table 29:
82
In the Virgin Islands, 23 percent of the eighth-grade students were being taught by
mathematics teachers who reported having at least a master's or education specialist's
degree. Across the nation, this figure was 47 percent for eighth-grade students.
One quarter of the students in eighth grade (25 percent) had mathematics teachers
who had the highest level of teaching certification available.
Across the nation, 63
percent of the eighth graders were taught by mathematics teachers who were certified
at the highest level available in their states.
About half of the eighth-grade students (47 percent) in the Virgin Islands had
mathematics teachers who had a mathematics (middle/junior high or secondary
school) teaching certificate. Across the nation, 79 percent in grade 8 had teachers
with such certification.
In 1990, 37 percent of the eighth-grade students were being taught by mathematics
teachers who reported having at least a master's or education specialist's degree, 51
percent were taught by teachers who had the highest level of teacher certification
available in the Virgin Islands, and 52 percent by teachers who had a mathematics
(middle/junior high or secondary school) teaching certificate. As indicated above, in
1992, the comparable figures were 23 percent, 25 percent, and 47 percent, respectively.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
9 2
Vagin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARO
1992
Mal Stale Auessment
TABLE 29
Profile of Eighth-Grade Public School
Mathematics Teachers
Grade 8
1990
1992
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage of students whose mathematics teachers
reported having the following degrees
Bachelor's degree
Virgin islands
63 ( 0.9)
76 ( 0.5)>
Nation
56 ( 4.2)
53 ( 2.9)
Master's or specialist's degree
Virgin Islands
37 ( 0.9)
23 ( 0.5)<
Nation
42 ( 4.2)
46 ( 2.9)
Doctorate or professional degree
Virgin Islands
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
Nation
2 ( 1.4)
0 ( 0.3)
Percentage of students whose mathematics teachers
reported having the following types of teaching
certificates that are recognized by the Virgin Islands
No regular certification
Virgin Islands
41 ( 1.0)
35 ( 0.7)<
Nation
4 ( 1.2)
4 ( 1.0)
Regular certification but less than the highest available
Virgin Islands
8 ( 0.6)
41 ( 1.0)>
Nation
29 ( 4.3)
33 ( 2.4)
Highest certification available (permanent or long-tenn)
Virgin Islands
51 ( 0.7)
25 ( 0.8)<
Nation
66 ( 4.3)
63 ( 2.4)
Percentage of students whose mathematics teachers
reported having teaching certification in the
following areas that are recognized by the Virgin Islands
1
Mathematics (middle school or secondary)
Virgin Islands
52 ( 0.7)
47 ( 0.9)<
Nation
84 ( 2.2)
79 ( 2.7)
Education (elementary or middle schoo0
Virgin Islands
23 ( 0.4)
0 ( 0.0)
Nation
12 ( 2.6)
18 ( 2.6)
Other
Virgin islands
25 ( 0.7)
53 ( 0.9)>
Nation
4 ( 1.5)
4 ( 1.2)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each
population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard error of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two
estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for details). If the notation > appears, it signifies
that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
If the notation <
appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
9 3
83
Vugin Islands
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Although mathematics teachers are held responsible for providing high-quality instruction to their students,
there continues to be concern that many have limited exposure to some content and concepts in the subject
area. The Trial State Assessment gathered details on the teachers' educational backgrounds -- more
specifically, their undergraduate and graduate majors and their in-service training. Tables 30 and 31 provide
information about the educational background of the students' mathematics teachers.
Summarizing teacher responses to questions concerning their undergraduate and graduate fields of study
(Table 30):37
In the Virgin Islands, 51 percent of the eighth-grade public-school students were being
taught mathematics by teachers who had an undergraduate major in mathematics.
Across the nation, 45 percent of the eighth-grade students had mathematics teachers
with a major in mathematics.
Some of the eighth-grade students in the Virgin Islands (19 percent) were taught
mathematics by teachers who had a graduate major in mathematics.
Across the
nation, 21 percent of the eighth-grade students were taught by teachers who majored
in mathematics in graduate school.
Summarizing teacher responses to questions concerning their in-service training for the year preceding the Trial
State Assessment (Table 31):
In the Virgin Islands, 37 percent of the eight-grade public-school students had
teachers who spent at least 16 hours on in-service education dedicated to mathematics
or the teaching of mathematics. Across the nation, 47 percent of the eighth-grade
students had teachers who spent at least that much time on similar types of in-service
training.
Relatively few of the eighth-grade students in the Virgin Islands (4 percent) had
mathematics teachers who did not spend any time on in-service education devoted to
mathematics or the teaching of mathematics.
Nationally, 8 percent of the eighth-
grade students had mathematics teachers who did not spend any time on similar in-
service training.
The percentage of eighth-grade students in 1992 with teachers who reported spending
at least 16 hours on in-service education dedicated to mathematics or the teaching of
mathematics increased compared to 1990 (37 percent in 1992 and 26 percent in 1990).
The percentage of eighth-grade students in 1992 with teachers who reported spending
no
time on in-service education dedicated to mathematics or the teaching of
mathematics decreased compared to 1990 (4 percent in 1992 and 25 percent in 1990).
37
Comparisons of teachers' responses in 1990 about their undergraduate and graduate degrees are not possible because of changes
in the form of the questions that the teachers were asked.
84
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
9 4
Vitgin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mal State Auessment
TABLE 30
Teachers' Reports on Their Undergraduate
and Graduate Fields of Study
1992 Grade 8
What was your undergraduate major?
Mathematics
Virgin Islands
Nation
Mathematics Education
Virgin Islands
Nation
Education
Virgin islands
Nation
Other
Virgin islands
Nation
What was your graduate major?
Mathematics
Virgin islands
Nation
Mathematics Education
Virgin Islands
Nation
Education
Virgin Islands
Nation
Other or no graduate late! of study
Virgin islands
Nation
Percentage
51 ( 0.6)
45 ( 2.9)
5 ( 0.4)
16 ( 2.1)
7 ( 0.7)
27 ( 2.8)
37 ( 0.8)
12 ( 1.2)
19 ( 1.0)
21 ( 2.7)
6 ( 0.5)
19 ( 2.4)
45 ( 1.1)
46 ( 4.0)
30 ( 1.0)
13 ( 1.9)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each
population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing
two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for details). Comparisons of teachers'
responses in 1990 and 1992 about their undergraduate and graduate degrees are not possible because of changes in the form of the
questions that the teachers were asked.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
9 5
85
Irugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT Islip
CARD
1992
Tidal State Assessment
TABLE 31
Teachers' Reports on Their In-Service
Training
Grade 8
1990
1992
Percentage
Percentage
During the last year, how much time in total have you spent on
in-sell/ice education in mathematics or the teaching of mathematics?
None
Virgin islands
25 ( 0.6)
4 ( 0.5)<
Nation
11 ( 2.1)
8 ( 1.5)
One to fifteen hours
Virgin islands
49 ( 0.9)
59 ( 0.8)>
Nation
51 ( 4.1)
45 ( 2.6)
Sixteen hours or more
Virgin islands
26 ( 0.7)
37 ( 0.9)>
Nation
39 ( 3.8)
47 ( 2.6)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each
population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing
two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for details). If the notation > appears, it
signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation
< appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
SUMMARY
Results from the 1990 NAEP mathematics assessment have indicated that students' achievement in
mathematics is much lower than educators and the public would like it to be.3a In curriculum areas
requiring special attention and improvement, such as mathematics, it is particularly important to have well-
qualified teachers. There is no guarantee that individuals with a specific set of credentials will be effective
teachers; however, it is likely that relevant training and experience do contribute to better teaching.
The information about public-school teachers' educational backgrounds and experience reveals that:
In the Virgin Islands, 23 percent of the eighth-grade students were being taught by
mathematics teachers who reported having at least a master's or education specialist's
degree. Across the nation, this figure was 47 percent for eighth-grade students.
38
Ina V.S. Mullis, John A. Dossey, Eugene H. Owen, and Gary W. Phillips.
The State of Mathematics Achievement: NAEP's 1990
Assessment of the Nation and the Trial Assessment of the States. (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics,
1991).
86
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
BEST COPY AVAILAR
9 6
Vugin Islands
In the Virgin Islands, 51 percent of the eighth-grade students were being taught
mathematics by teachers who had an undergraduate major in mathematics. Across
the nation, 45 percent of the eighth-grade students had mathematics teachers with a
major in mathematics.
Some of the eighth-grade students in the Virgin Islands (19 percent) were taught
mathematics by teachers who had a graduate major in mathematics.
Across the
nation, 21 percent of the eighth-grade students were taught by teachers who majored
in mathematics in graduate school.
In the Virgin Islands, 37 percent of the eighth-grade students had teachers who spent
at least 16 hours on in-service education dedicated to mathematics or the teaching of
mathematics. Across the nation, 47 percent of the eighth-grade students had teachers
who spent at least that much time on similar types of in-service training.
Relatively few of the eighth-grade students in the Virgin Islands (4 percent) had
mathematics teachers who did not spend any time on in-service education devoted to
mathematics or the teaching of mathematics.
Nationally, 8 percent of the eighth-
grade students had mathematics teachers who did not spend any time on similar in-
service training.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
87
9 7
Virgin Islands
CHAP l'ER 7
The Conditions Beyond School that Facilitate Mathematics
Learning and Teaching
Parents are children's first teachers and should remain instrumental in their children's educational
success.
39 Parents can support learning in many ways, including monitoring homework, turning off the
television in favor of reading or other literacy-related activities, and making sure that students are attending
school. To examine the relationship between home environment and mathematics proficiency, students
participating in the Trial State Assessment were asked a series of questions about themselves, their parents
or guardians, and home factors related to education.
AMOUNT OF READING MATERIALS IN THE HOME
The number and types of reading and reference materials in the home may be an indicator of the value
placed by parents on learning and schooling. Public-school students participating in the Trial State
Assessment were asked about the availability of newspapers, magazines, books, and an encyclopedia at
home. Average mathematics proficiency associated with having zero to two, three, or four of these types of
materials in the home is shown in Table 32 and Table A32 (Page 169) in the Data Appendix.
The data for the Virgin Islands reveal that:
Grade 8 students in the Virgin Islands who had all four of these types of materials
in the home showed a higher mathematics proficiency than did students with zero to
two types of materials.
In grade 8, 39 percent of Black students and 37 percent of Hispanic students had all
four types of these reading materials in their homes.
Compared to 1990, about the same percentage of eighth-grade students in 1992 had
all four types of these reading materials in their homes (40 percent in 1990 and 39
percent in 1992).
39
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century. (New York, NY:
Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1989); James P. Corner. "Home School, and Academic Learning," in Access to Knowledge :
An Agenda for Our Nation's Schools, John T. Goodlad and Pamela Keating, Eds. (New York, NY: College Entrance
Examination Board, 1999); The Harvard Education Letter. "Parents and Schools." (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
November/December 1988).
88
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
9 8
Virgin Islands
THE
TEN'S
TABLE 32
I
Students' Reports on Types off
ending
REPORT
11992
Mal Slate Aasaasmant
Materials in the Home
Grade 9
1990
1992
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Does your family have, or receive on a regular basis, each of
the following items: more than 25 books, an encyclopedia,
newspapers, magazines?
Zero to two types
Virgin islands
24 ( 1.1)
25 ( 0.9)
213 ( 1.8)
218 ( 1.7)
Nation
21 ( 1.0)
21 ( 0.7)
244 ( 2.1)
247 ( 1.2)
Three types
Virgin islands
36 ( 1.6)
37 ( 1.2)
217 ( 1.8)
218 ( 1.5)
Nation
30 ( 1.0)
31 ( 0.7)
259 ( 1.6)
266 ( 1.3)>
Four types
Virgin Islands
40 ( 1.4)
39 ( 1.0)
224 ( 1.3)
228 ( 1.6)
Nation
48 ( 1.3)
48 ( 1.0)
272 ( 1.5)
275 ( 1.1)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details).
If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value
for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
9 9
89
Vugin Islands
HOURS OF TELEVISION WATCHED PER DAY
Report after report has chronicled the relationship between television watching and achievement.° To
provide additional relevant data, public-school students participating in the 1992 Trial State Assessment
were asked to report on the amount of television they watched each day (Table 33 and Table A33
[Page 171] in the Data Appendix).
In grade 8:
In the Virgin Islands, average mathematics proficiency was higher for students who
spent three hours watching television than for students who watched television one
hour or less each day.
Some of the students in the Virgin Islands (13 percent) watched one hour or less
of television each day; 32 percent watched six hours or more. In 1990, 18 percent
watched one hour or less of television each day while 27 percent watched six hours
or more.
In the Virgin Islands, 33 percent of Black students and 32 percent of Hispanic
students watched six hours or more of television each day.
In addition, 12 percent of Black students and 14 percent of Hispanic students
watched an hour or less of television each day.
Compared to 1990, a greater percentage of eighth-grade students in 1992 watched
six hours or more of television each day (27 percent in 1990 and 32 percent in
1992). A smaller percentage of eighth-grade students in 1992 watched an hour or
less of television each day (18 percent in 1990 and 13 percent in 1992).
so
Ina V.S. Mullis, John A. Dossey, Eugene H. Owen, and Gary W. Phillips. The State of Mathematics Achievement: NAEP's 1990
Assessment of the Nation and the Trial Assessment of the States. (Washington, DC National Center for Education Statistics,
1991).
90
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
100
Vugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Trial Stab Aussamant
TABLE 33
Students' Reports on the Amount of Time
Spent Watching Television Each Day
Grade 8
1990
1992
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
How much television do you usually watch each day?
Ono hour or loss
Virgin islands
18 ( 1.2)
13 ( 0.9)<
213 ( 2.1)
215 ( 3.0)
Nation
12 ( 0.8)
15 ( 0.6)>
269 ( 2.4)
276 ( 2.2)
Tem hours
Virgin Islands
14 ( 1.0)
13 ( 0.7)
219 ( 2.1)
219 ( 2.8)
Nation
21 ( 0.9)
23 ( 0.6)
268 ( 1.9)
276 ( 1.6)>
Thies haws
Virgin Islands
17 ( 1.3)
16 ( 0.7)
222 ( 1.6)
228 ( 2.3)
Nation
22 ( 0.8)
22 ( 0.6)
266 ( 1.8)
270 ( 1.2)
Four to five holes
Virgin Islands
24 ( 13)
26 ( 1.3)
222 ( 2.0)
225 ( 1.6)
Nation
28 ( 1.1)
26 ( 0.7)
262 ( 1.6)
260 ( 1.1)
Sic hoses or mote
Virgin Islands
27 ( 1.0)
32 ( 1.2)>
218 ( 1.7)
221 ( 1.7)
Nation
16 ( 1.0)
13 ( 0.4)
245 ( 2.0)
243 ( 1.5)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value
for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
101
91
Vugin Islands
STUDENT ABSENTEEISM
Excessive absenteeism may also be an obstacle to students' success in school. To examine the relationship
of student absenteeism to mathematics proficiency, the eighth-grade students participating in the Trial State
Assessment were asked to report on the number of days of school they missed during the one-month period
preceding the assessment.
From Table 34:
Average mathematics proficiency was highest for eighth-grade students who did not
miss any days of school and lowest for eighth-grade students who missed three or
more days of school.
About half of the students in grade 8 (46 percent) did not miss any school days in the
month prior to the assessment, while 24 percent in grade 8 missed three days or
more.
In 1990, 50 percent of the eighth-grade students did not miss any school days in the
month prior to the assessment, while 22 percent missed three days or more.
THE NATION'S
TABLE 34
I
Students' Reports on the Number of
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mal State Assessment
Days of School Missed
Grade 8
1990
1992
Per
tage
cen
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
How many days of school did you miss last month?
None
Virgin Islands
50 ( 1.5)
46 ( 1.3)
223 ( 1.2)
225 ( 1.4)
Nation
45 ( 1.1)
42 ( 1.0)
265 ( 1.7)
271 ( 1.1)>
One or two days
Virgin islands
29 ( 1.2)
30 ( 1.1)
218 ( 1.7)
223 ( 1.8)
Nation
32 ( 0.9)
34 ( 0.9)
267 ( 1.5)
268 ( 1.1)
Mee days or mote
Virgin Islands
22 ( 1.2)
24 ( 0.9)
214 ( 1.9)
218 ( 1.9)
Nation
23 ( 1.1)
23 ( 0.6)
250 ( 1.8)
257 ( 1.4)>
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value
for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
92
102
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Virgin Islands
STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF MATHEMATICS
Learning mathematics should require students not only to master essential skills and concepts, but also to
develop confidence in their mathematical abilities and to value mathematics as a discipline!' Students
were asked if they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements designed to elicit their perceptions of
mathematics. These included statements about:
Personal experience with mathematics, including students' enjoyment of mathematics
and level of confidence in their mathematical abilities: I like mathematics; I am good
in mathematics.
Value of mathematics, including students' perceptions of its present utility and its
expected relevance to future work and life requirements:
Almost all people use
mathematics in their jobs; Mathematics is not more for boys than for girls.
The nature of mathematics, including students' ability to identify the salient features
of the discipline: Mathematics is useful for solving everyday problems.
A "perception indee was developed to examine students' perceptions of mathematics. For each of the five
attitude statements, students who responded "strongly agree" were given a value of 1 (indicating very positive
attitudes about the subject), students who responded "agree" were given a value of 2, and students who
responded "undecided," "disagree," or "strongly disagree" were given a value of 342 Each student's
responses were averaged over the five statements. The students were then assigned a perception index
according to whether they tended to strongly agree with the statements (an index of 1); tended to agree
with the statement (an index of 2); or tended to be undecided, to disagree, or to strongly disagree with the
statements (an index of 3).
Table 35 provides the data for eighth-grade public-school students' attitudes toward mathematics as defmed
by their perception index. The following results were observed for the Virgin Islands.
Average mathematics proficiency was highest for students who were in the "strongly
agree" category and lowest for students who were in the "undecided, disagree, strongly
disagree" category.
Less than half of the students (42 percent) were in the "strongly agree" category
(perception index of 1). Across the nation, 32 percent were in this category, and in
the Virgin Islands in 1990, 37 percent were in this category.
Some of the students in the Virgin Islands (14 percent), versus 20 percent across the
nation, were in the "undecided, disagree, or strongly disagree" category (perception
index of 3). In 1990 in the Virgin Islands, 16 percent of the students were in this
category.
41
Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. (Reston, Va: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
1989).
42
In the 1990 Trial State Assessment, students were asked five perception questions while in the 1992 Trial State Assessment, eight
perception questions were asked, the five from 1990 plus three new questions. To compare the students' perception indices from
1990 to 1992, the same five statements were used to create the indices for both years.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
93
103
Virgin Islands
Compared to 1990, a greater percentage of eighth-grade students in 1992 were in the
"strongly agree" category (37 percent in 1990 and 42 percent in 1992).
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mal $tate Amassment
ramp
TABLE 35
Students' Positive Perceptions and
Attitudes Toward Mathematics
Grade 8
1990
1992
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Student 'Perception Index' Groups
Sbongly wee
(perception index" of 1)
37 ( 1.4)
42 ( 1.5)>
Virgin Islands
227 ( 1.5)
228 ( 1.3)
27 ( 1.3)
32 ( 0.8)>
Nation
272 ( 2.0)
276 ( 1.2)
Agree
("perception index" of 2)
47 ( 1.2)
44 ( 1.3)
Virgin Islands
216 ( 1.1)
219 ( 1.6)
49 ( 1.0)
48 ( 0.8)
Nation
263 ( 1.7)
266 ( 1.0)
Undeckled, disagree, stmngly disagree
(perception index" of 3)
16 ( 0.9)
14 ( 0.9)
Virgin islands
208 ( 1.9)
211 ( 2.4)
24 ( 1.2)
20 ( 0.6)<
Nation
252 ( 2.0)
255 ( 1.6)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value
for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level. A "perception index" of 1 represents very positive perceptions toward mathematics
and a "perception index" of 3 represents uncertain or negative perceptions toward mathematics.
94
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
104
Vugin Islands
SUMMARY
Some out-of-school factors cannot be changed, but others can be altered in a positive way to influence a
student's learning and motivation. Partnerships among students, parents, teachers, and the community can
affect the educational environment in the home, resulting in more out-of-school reading and an increased
value placed on educational achievement, among other desirable outcomes.
The data related to out-of-school factors for eighth-grade public-school students show that:
Students in the Virgin Islands who had all four types of reading materials (an
encyclopedia, newspapers, magazines, and more than 25 books) in the home
showed a higher mathematics proficiency than did students with zero to two types
of materials.
Some of the eighth-grade students in the Virgin Islands (13 percent) watched one
hour or less of television each day; 32 percent watched six hours or more. In
1990, 18 percent watched one hour or less of television each day while 27 percent
watched six hours or more.
Average mathematics proficiency was highest for eighth-grade students who did not
miss any days of school and lowest for eighth-grade students who missed three or
more days of schools.
In grade 8, average mathematics proficiency was highest for students who were in
the "strongly agree" category and lowest for students who were in the "undecided,
disagree, strongly disagree" category, relating to students' perceptions of
mathematics.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
95
105
'Pugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Trial State Assessment
PROCEDURAL APPENDIX
This appendix provides an overview of the technical details of the 1992 Trial State Assessment Program. It
includes a discussion of the assessment design, the mathematics framework and objectives upon which the
assessment was based, and the procedures used to analyze the results.
The objectives for the assessment were developed through a consensus process managed by the Council of
Chief State School Officers, and the items were developed through a similar process managed by
Educational Testing Service. The development of the Trial State Assessment Program benefitted from the
involvement of hundreds of representatives from State Education Agencies who attended numerous
NETWORK meetings; served on committees; reviewed the framework, objectives, and questions; and, in
general, provided important suggestions on all aspects of the program.
Assessment Design
The 1992 Trial State Assessment was based on a focused balanced incomplete block (BIB) spiral matrix
design
a design that enables broad coverage of mathematics content while minimiiing the burden for any
one student.
At grade 8, 183 mathematics items were developed for the assessment, including 59 regular
constructed-response and six extended constructed-response items. To permit comparisons between the
1990 and 1992 assessments, 76 items at grade 8 that had been included in the 1990 assessment were also
administered in the 1992 assessment.
The first step in implementing the BIB design required dividing the entire set of mathematics items into 13
units called blocks. Each block was designed to be completed in 15 minutes. The blocks were assembled
into assessment booklets so that each booklet contained three background questionnaires -- the first
consisting of general background questions, the second composed of mathematics background questions, and
the third containing questions about the students' motivation to do well in the assessment -- and three
blocks of cognitive mathematics items. Students were given five minutes to complete each of the first two
background questionnaires, 45 minutes to complete the three 15-minute blocks of mathematics items, and
three minutes to complete the third background questionnaire. Thus, the first part of the assessment
required approximately one hour of student time.
In accordance with the BIB design, the blocks were assigned to the assessment booklets so that each block
appeared in exactly six booklets and each block appeared with every other block in one booklet. Twenty-six
assessment booklets were used for the Trial State Assessment Program. The booklets were spiraled or
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
97
106
Vugin Islands
interleaved in a systematic sequence so that each booklet appeared an appropriate number of times in the
sample. The students within an assessment session were assigned booklets in the order in which the
booklets were spiraled. Thus, students in any given session received a variety of different booklets and only
a small number of students in the session received the same booklet. Following this administration, all
students were given a special booklet with the Estimation block. The Estimation items were administered
using a 15-minute paced audiotape which made any direct calculations of answers difficult.
Assessment Content
The framework and objectives for the Trial State Assessment Program were developed using a broad-based
consensus process, as described in the introduction to this report.'
The assessment framework consisted of
two dimensions: mathematical content areas and abilities. Five content areas were assessed -- Numbers
and Operations; Measurement; Geometry; Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability; and Algebra and
Functions -- as well as Estimation (see Figure Al).
The 1992 mathematics assessment included multiple-choice and regular constructed-response questions, as
well as the use of calculators, manipulatives, and a paced audiotaped Estimation section. The three
mathematical ability areas assessed were Conceptual Understanding, Procedural Knowledge, and Problem
Solving (see Figure A2). The information from the Estimation section is intended to supplement the data
obtained from the Numbers and Operations and the Measurement questions administered using the more
traditional paper-and-pencil or calculator approaches.
The extended constructed-response questions required the students to formulate and demonstrate more
detailed problem-solving skills, required up to about five minutes to complete, and were scored using a
partial-credit model. Three examples of extended constructed-response questions used for eighth-grade
students in the 1992 Trial State Assessment are provided, starting on page 102. Table Al, on page 101,
gives the percentages of students attaining each of the score levels for the three example items.
Data Analysis and Scales
Once the assessments were conducted and information from the assessment booklets was compiled in a
database, the assessment data were weighted to match known population proportions and adjusted for
nonresponse. Analyses were then conducted to determine the percentages of students who gave various
responses to each cognitive and background question.
Item response theory (IRT) was used to estimate average mathematics proficiency for each jurisdiction and
for various subpopulations, based on students' performance on the set of mathematics items they received.
IRT provides a common scale on which performance can be reported for the nation, each jurisdiction, and
subpopulations, even when all students do not answer the same set of questions. This common scale makes
it possible to report on relationships between students' characteristics (based on their responses to the
background questions) and their overall performance on the assessment.
See National Assessment of Educational Progress.
Mathematics Objectives: 1990 Assessment. (Princeton, NJ: Educational
Testing Service, 1988) for a description of the frameworks and objectives.
98
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Vugin Islands
FIGURE Al I Areas Assessed
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARO
1992
TAM State Assessment
Numbers and Operations
This content area focuses on students' understanding of numbers (whole numbers, fractions, decimals,
integers) and their application to real-world situations, as well as computational and estimation situations.
Understanding numerical relationships as expressed in ratios, proportions, and percents is emphasized.
Students' abihties in estimation, mental computation, use of calculators, generalization of numerical
patterns, and verification of results are also included.
Measurement
This content area focuses on students' ability to describe real-world objects using numbers. Students are
asked to identify attributes, select appropriate units, apply measurement concepts, and communicate
measurement-related ideas to others. Questions are included that require an ability to read instruments
using metric, customary, or nonstandard units, with emphasis on precision and accuracy.
Questions
requiring estimation, measurements, and applications of measurements of length, time, money,
temperature, mass/weight, area, volume, capacity, and angles are also included in this content area.
Geometry
This content area focuses on students' knowledge of geometric figures and relationships and on their skills
in working with this knowledge. These skills are important at all levels of schooling as well as in practical
applications. Students need to be able to model and visualize geometric figures m one, two, and three
dimensions and to communicate geometric ideas. In addition, students should be able to use informal
reasoning to establish geometric relationships.
Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability
This content area focuses on data representation and analysis across all disciplines and reflects the
importance and prevalence of these activities in our society.
Statistical knowledge and the ability to
interpret data are necessaiy skills in the contemporary world. Questions emphasize appropriate methods
for gathering data, the visual exploration of data, and the development and evaluation of arguments based
on data analysis.
Algebra and Functions
This content area is broad in scope, covering algebraic and functional concepts in more informal,
exploratory ways.
Proficiency in this content area requires both manipulative facility and conceptual
understanding; it involves the ability to use algebra as a means of representation and algebraic processing
as a problem-solving tool. Functions are viewed not only in terms of algebraic formulas, but also in terms
of verbal descriptions, tables of values, and graphs.
Estimation
Estimation involving whole numbers, fractions, and decimals pervades most of the content areas in
mathematics. Presented using a paced audiotape procedure, questions assess students' abilities to make
estimates appropriate to a wide variety of situations. Estimates take into consideration such factors as
knowing when to estimate and whether to overestimate or underestimate in a particular problem.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
103
99
Virgin Islands
FIGURE A2 I Mathematical Abilities
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
TAW State Assumed
The following three categories of mathematical abilities are not to be construed as hierarchical. For
example, problem solving involves interactions between conceptual knowledge and procedural skills, but
what is considered complex problem solving at one grade level may be considered conceptual understanding
or procedural knowledge at another.
Conceptual Understanding
Students demonstrate conceptual understanding in mathematics when they provide evidence that they can
recognize, label, and generate examples and counterexamples of concepts; can use and interrelate models,
diagrams, and varied representations of concepts; can identify and apply principles; know and can apply
facts and defmitions; can compare, contrast, and integrate related concepts and principles; can recognize,
interpret, and apply the signs, symbols, and terms used to represent concepts; and can interpret the
assumptions and relations involving concepts in mathematical settings. Such understandings are essential
to performing procedures in a meaningful way and applying them in problem-solving situations.
Procedural Knowledge
Students demonstrate procedural knowledge in mathematics when they provide evidence of their ability
to select and apply appropriate procedures correctly, verify and justify the correctness of a procedure using
concrete models or symbolic methods, and extend or modify procedures to deal with factors inherent in
problem settings. Procedural knowledge includes the various numerical algorithms in mathematics that
have been created as tools to meet specific needs in an efficient manner. It also encompasses the abilities,
to read and produce graphs and tables, execute geometric constructions, and perform noncomputational
skills such as rounding and ordering.
Problem Solving
In problem solving, students are required to use their reasoning and analytic abilities when they encounter
new situations. Problem solving includes the ability to recognize and formulate problems; determine the
sufficiency and consistency of data; use strategies, data, models, and relevant mathematics; generate,
extend, and modify procedures; use reasoning (i.e.,
spatial, inductive, deductive, statistical, and
proportional); and judge the reasonableness and correctness of solutions.
100
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
109
Irugin Islands
A scale ranging from 0 to 500 was created to report performance for each content area and for Estimation
skills. The scales summarize examinee performance across all three item types used in the assessment
(multiple-choice, regular constructed-response, and extended constructed-response). In producing the scales,
three distinct IRT models were used. Multiple-choice items were scaled using the three-parameter logistic
model; regular constructed-response items were scaled using the two-parameter logistic model; and the
extended constructed-response items were scaled using a generalized partial-credit model. Each
content-area scale was based on the distribution of student performance across all three grades assessed in
the 1990 national assessment (grades 4, 8, and 12) and had a mean of 250 and a standard deviation of 50.
A composite scale was created as an overall measure of students' mathematics proficiency. The composite
scale was a weighted average of the five content area scales, where the weight for each content area was
proportional to the relative importance assigned to the content area in the specifications developed by the
Mathematics Objectives Panel.
ME NATION'S
REPORT
CARO
1992
Trial State Aueument
TABLE Al
Eighth-Grade Student Score-Level Percentages
for Constructed-Response Example Items
No Response
Incorrect
I
Minimal
I
Partial
I Satisfactory
I
Extended
DIMPLE ITEM 1
Marcy Dot Pattern
Virgin Islands
48 ( 2.8)
49 ( 2.8)
3 ( 1.0)
0 ( 0.3)
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
Nation
16 ( 1.2)
64 ( 1.4)
9 ( 0.8)
6 ( 0.7)
1
( 0.2)
4 ( 0.6)
EXAMPLE ITEM 2
Treena's Budget
Virgin Islands
61 ( 2.3)
27 ( 2.9)
10 ( 2.1)
1 ( 0.6)
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
Nation
23 ( 1.4)
37 ( 1.8)
21 ( 1.3)
14 ( 1.1)
2 ( 0.4)
2 ( 0.5)
Ek;MPLE ITEM 3
Radio Station
Virgin Islands
47 ( 3.4)
47 ( 3.3)
4 ( 1.1)
1 ( 0.7)
0 ( 0.3)
0 ( 0.0)
Nation
17 ( 1.2)
45 ( 1.8)
21 ( 1.4)
12 ( 1.1)
4 ( 0.6)
1 ( 0.3)
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
101
11 0
Vfrgin Islands
ME NATION'S
REPORT Nu"
CARD
1992
TAM State Assessment
1
EXAMPLE ITEM 1
Marcy Dot Pattern
Grade 8
Extended Constructed-Response Item: Algebra and Functions
This question requires you to show your work and explain your reasoning. You
may use drawings, words, and numbers in your explanation. Your answer should
be clear enough so that another person could read it and understand your thinldng.
It is important that you show all your work.
A pattern of dots is shown below.
At each step, more dots are added to the
pattern. The number of dots added at each step is more than the number added
in the previous step. The pattern continues infinitely.
(1st Step)
(2nd Step)
(3rd Step)
Marcy has to determine the number of dots in the 20th step, but she does not want
to draw all 20 pictures and then count the dots.
Explain or show how she could do this and give the answer that Marcy should get
for the number of dots.
Did you use the calculator on this question?
Yes
No
102
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Vitgin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
EXAMPLE ITEM 1
(continued)
Marcy Dot Pattern
Grade 8
rasp
1992
Trisi Stall Assessment
Possible Correct Response
Explanation should include one of the following ideas with no false statements.
a. For each successive step, the number of rows and the number of columns is
increasing by 1, forming a pattern. For example, the first step forms 1-by-2
rows and columns, the next step 2-by-3, the third step 3-by-4, and so on.
Continuing this pattern would mean that the 20th step has 20 x 21 dots or
420 dots.
b. Look at successive differences between consecutive steps. The differences 4,
6, 8, 10,... form a pattern. There are 19 differences forming the pattern 4, 6,
8, 10, ... 38, 40 and this sum is (9 x 44) + 22 or 418. However, 2 must be
added for the first step, yielding a response of 420.
Scoring Guide
No response.
Incorrect. The work is completely incorrect, irrelevant, or I don't know.
Minimal. An attempt to generalize or to draw all 20 pictures in the pattern
(with a clear understanding of the pattern).
Partial. A partial (incomplete) correct explanation.
Satisfactory. Correct explanation of pattern but does not include or omits the
correct number of dots (420).
Extended. Correct answer.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
112
103
Vugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Trial State Asseument
EXAMPLE ITEM 2
1
Treena's Budget
Grade 8
Extended Constructed-Response Item: Numbers and Operations
This question requires you to show your work and explain your reasoning. You
may use drawings, words, and numbers in your explanation. Your answer should
be clear enough so that another person could read it and understand your thinking.
It is important that you show all your work.
Treena won a 7-day scholarship worth $1,000 to the Pro Shot Basketball camp.
Round-trip travel expenses to the camp are $335 by air or $125 by train. At the
camp she must choose between a week of individual instruction at $60 per day or
a week of group instruction at $40 per day. Treena's food and other expenses are
fixed at $45 per day.
If she does not plan to spend any money other than the
scholarship, what are all choices of travel and instruction plans that she could
afford to make?
Explain your reasoning.
Did you use the calculator on this question?
Yes
No
104
1 1 3
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Vagin Islands
EXAMPLE ITEM 2
Treena's iLudget
(continued)
Grade 8
Possible Correct Response
Treena's fixed expenses will be 7 x $45 = $315 for the 7 days. Therefore, she
has $1,000 - $315 = $685 to spend for instruction and travel. The group plan
will cost 7 x $40 = $280 while the individual plan will cost 7 x $60 = $420.
Treena has 3 options:
Group and Train:
$280 + $125 = $405
Group and Plane:
$280 + $335 = $615
Individual and Train:
$420 + $125 = $545
She cannot choose the individual plan and travel by plane because her total
expenses would be $1,070 which is greater than the allotted scholarship.
Any full-credit response clearly communicates that Treena has 3 options, what
the 3 options are, and how the student arrived at the 3 options.
Scoring Guide
No response.
Incorrect. The work is completely incorrect, irrelevant, or I don't know.
Minimal. a) Student indicated conclusions with no mathematical evidence OR b)
Student work contains major mathematical errors and/or flaws in reasoning. For
example: the student does not consider Treena's fixed expenses.
Partial. a) Student indicates 1 or more correct conclusions, but the work
contains some computational errors OR b) Student has correct mathematics, but
indicates no conclusion.
Satisfactory. a) Student shows correct mathematical evidence that Treena has 3
choices, but the explanation is unclear or incomplete OR b) Student shows
correct mathematical evidence for any 2 of Treena's 3 choices and the
explanation is clear and complete.
Extended. Full-credit response: correct solution and complete, clear
explanation.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
114
105
Virgin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mal State Assessment
Map
1
EXAMPLE ITEM 3
Radio Station
Grade 8
Extended Constructed-Response Item: Geometty
This question requires you to show your work and explain your reasoning. You
may use drawings, words, and numbers in your explanation. Your answer should
be clear enough so that another person could read it and understand your thinking.
It is important that you show all your work.
Radio station KMAT in Math City is 200 miles from radio station KGEO in
Geometry City. Highway 7, a straight road, connects the two cities.
KMAT broadcasts can be received up to 150 miles in all directions from the station
and KGEO broadcasts can be received up to 125 miles in all directions. Radio
waves travel from each radio station through the air, as represented below.
ro--Radio
/
.
Wave
I 11 /
Radio
1
i
Station
,/
On the next page, draw a diagram that shows the following:
Highway 7
The location of the two stations
The part of Highway 7 where both radio stations can be received
Be sure to label the distances along the highway and the length in miles of the part
of the highway where both stations can be received.
106
115
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Trugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
UM =Me Aussament
EXAMPLE ITEM 3
I
Radio Station
(continued)
Grade 8
Possible Correct Response
200 Miles
KMAT
(Math City)
vvats
av
.
I
I Highway 7.
75 Miles
WI
0.
4.
KGEO
.1
City
Geometry
Area where both
stations can be
received.
There is a 75-mile part of Highway 7 that is within both broadcast areas. It
starts 75 miles outside Math City and ends 150 miles outside Math City.
Scoring Guide
No response.
Incorrect. The work is completely incorrect, irrelevant, or I don't know.
Minimal. Map with cities, highway, and 200 miles labeled (or some indication of
scale) OR map that uses some, but not all of the given information.
Partial. Map with cities, highway, and 200 miles labeled (or some indication of
scale) AND identifies incorrect common broadcast area (e.g., no/ on Highway 7)
or insufficiently identifies an area.
Satisfactory. Map with cities, highway, and 200 miles labeled and identifies
common broadcast area on Highway 7 but omits or incorrectly computes length
of common area.
Extended. Correct answer.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
11 6
107
Vugin Islands
Questionnaires for Teachers and Schools
As part of the Trial State Assessment, questionnaires were given to the mathematics teachers of assessed
students and to the principal or other administrator in each participating school.
A Background Panel drafted a set of issues and guidelines and made recommendations concerning the
design of these questionnaires. For the 1992 assessment, the teacher and school questionnaires focused on
five educational areas: instructional content, instructional practices and experiences, teacher characteristics,
school conditions and context, and conditions beyond school (i.e., home support, out-of-school activities, and
attitudes). Similar to the development of the materials given to students, the guidelines and the teacher and
school questionnaires were prepared through an iterative process that involved extensive development, field
testing, and review by external advisory groups.
It is important to note that in this report, as in all NAEP reports, the student is always the unit of analysis,
even when information from the teacher or school questionnaire is being reported. Having the student as
the unit of analysis makes it possible to describe the instruction received by representative samples of
eighth-grade students in public schools. Although this approach may provide a different perspective from
that which would be obtained by simply collecting information from a sample of eighth-grade mathematics
teachers or from a sample of schools, it is consistent with NAEP's goal of providing information about the
educational context and performance of students.
MATHEMATICS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
The questionnaires for eighth-grade mathematics teachers consisted of two parts. The first requested
information about the teacher, such as race/ethnicity and gender, as well as academic degrees held, teaching
certification, training in mathematics, and ability to get instructional resources. In the second part, teachers
were asked to provide information on each class they taught that included one or more students who
participated in the Trial State Assessment Program. The information included, among other things, the
extent to which textbooks or worksheets were used, the instructional emphasis placed on different
mathematical topics, and the use of various instructional approaches. Because of the nature of the sampling
for the Trial State Assessment, the responses to the mathematics teacher questionnaire do not necessarily
represent all eighth-grade mathematics teachers in a state or territory. Rather, they represent the teachers
of the particular students being assessed.
SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS AND POLICIES QUESTIONNAIRE
An extensive school questionnaire was completed by principals or other administrators in the schools
participating in the Trial State Assessment. In addition to questions about the individuals who completed
the questionnaires, there were questions about school policies, course offerings, and special priority areas,
among other topics.
108
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
117
Vugin Islands
Estimating Variability
The statistics reported by NAEP (average proficiencies, percentages of students at or above particular
achievement levels, and percentages of students responding in certain ways to background questions) are
estimates of the corresponding information for the population of eighth-grade students in public schools in
a state or territory. These estimates are based on the performance of carefully selected, representative
samples of eighth-grade public-school students from the state or territory.
If a different representative sample of students were selected and the assessment repeated, it is likely that
the estimates might vary somewhat, and both of these sample estimates might differ somewhat from the
value of the mean or percentage that would be obtained if every eighth-grade public-school student in the
state or territory were assessed. Virtually all statistics that are based on samples (including those in NAEP)
are subject to a certain degree of uncertainty. The uncertainty attributable to using samples of students is
referred to as sampling error.
Like almost all estimates based on assessment measures, NAEP's total group and subgroup proficiency
estimates are subject to a second source of uncertainty, in addition to sampling error. As previously noted,
each student who participated in the Trial State Assessment was administered a subset of questions from
the total set of questions. If each student had been administered a different, but equally appropriate, set of
the assessment questions -- or the entire set of questions -- somewhat different estimates of total group and
subgroup proficiency might have been obtained. Thus, a second source of uncertainty arises because each
student was administered a subset of the total pool of questions.
In addition to reporting estimates of average proficiencies, proportions of students at or above particular
achievement levels, and proportions of students giving various responses to background questions, this
report also provides estimates of the magnitude of the uncertainty associated with these statistics. These
measures of the uncertainty are called standard errors and are given in parentheses in each of the tables in
the report. The standard errors of the estimates of mathematics proficiency statistics reflect both sources of
uncertainty discussed above. The standard errors of the other statistics (such as the proportion of students
answering a background question in a certthn way or the proportion of students in certain racial/ethnic
groups) reflect only sampling error. NAEP uses a methodology called the jackknife procedure to estimate
these standard errors.
The reader is reminded that, like all surveys, NAEP results are also subject to other kinds of errors
including the effects of necessarily imperfect adjustment for student and school non-response and other
largely unknowable effects associated with the particular instrumentation and data collection methods used.
Nonsampling errors can be attributed to a number of sources:
inability to obtain complete information
about all selected students in all selected schools in the sample (some students or schools refused to
participate, or students participated but answered only certain items); ambiguous definitions; differences in
interpreting questions; inability or unwillingness to give correct information; mistakes in recording, coding,
or scoring data; and other errors of collecting, processing, sampling, and estimating missing data. The
extent of nonsampling errors is difficult to estimate. By their nature, the impact of such errors cannot be
reflected in the data-based estimates of uncertainty provided in NAEP reports.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
109
118
Vugin Islands
Drawing Inferences from the Results
One of the goals of the Trial State Assessment Program is to make inferences about the overall population
of eighth-grade students in public schools in each participating state and territory based on the particular
sample of students assessed. One uses the results from the sample -- taking into account the uncertainty
associated with all samples -- to make inferences about the population. The use of confidence intervals,
based on the standard errors, provides a way to make inferences about the population means and
proportions in a manner that reflects the uncertainty associated with the sample estimates. An estimated
sample mean proficiency ± 2 standard errors approximates a 95 percent confidence interval for the
corresponding population quantity. This means that with approximately 95 percent confidence, the average
performance of the entire population of interest (e.g., all eighth-grade students in public schools in a state
or territory) is within ± 2 standard errors of the sample mean.
As an example, suppose that the average mathematics proficiency of the students in a particular state's
eighth-grade sample were 256 with a standard error of 1.2. A 95 percent confidence interval for the
population quantity would be as follows:
Mean ± 2 standard errors = 256 ± 2 . (1.2) = 256 ± 2.4 =
256 - 2.4 and 256 + 2.4 = 253.6, 258.4
Thus, one can conclude with 95 percent confidence that the average proficiency for the entire population of
eighth-grade students in public schools in that state is between 253.6 and 258.4.
Similar confidence intervals can be constructed for percentages, provided that the percentages are not
extremely law (greater than 90 percent) or extremely small (less than 10 percent). For extreme percentages,
confidence intervals constructed in the above manner may not be appropriate and procedures for obtaining
accurate confidence intervals are quite complicated.
Analyzing Subgroup Differences in Proficiencies and Proportions
In addition to the overall results, this report presents outcomes separately for a variety of important
subgroups. Many of these subgroups are defined by shared characteristics of students, such as their gender,
race/ethnicity, and the type of community in which their school is located. Other subgroups are defmed by
students' responses to background questions. Still other subgroups are defined by the responses of the
assessed students' mathematics teachers to questions in the mathematics teacher questionnaire.
As an example, one might be interested in answering the question: Do students who reported spending 45
minutes or more doing mathematics homework each day exhibit higher average mathematics proficiency than
students who reported spending 15 minutes or less?
To answer the question posed above, one begins by comparing the average mathematics proficiency for the
two groups being analyzed. If the mean for the group that reported spending 45 minutes or more on
mathematics homework is higher, one may be tempted to conclude that that group does have higher
achievement than the group that reported spending 15 minutes or less on homework. However, even
though the means differ, there may be no real difference in performance between the two groups in the
population because of the uncertainty associated with the estimated average proficiency of the groups in the
110
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
1
Vusin Islands
sample. Remember that the intent is to make a statement about the entire population, not about the
particular sample that was assessed. The data from the sample are used to make inferences about the
population as a whole.
As discussed in the previous section, each estimated sample mean proficiency (or proportion) has a degree
of uncertainty associated with it. It is therefore possible that if all students in the population had been
assessed, rather than a sample of students, or if the assessment had been repeated with a different sample
of students or a different, but equivalent, set of questions, the performances of various groups would have
been different. Thus, to determine whether there is a real difference between the mean proficiency (or
proportion of a certain attribute) for two groups in the population, one must obtain an estimate of the
degree of uncertainty associated with the difference between the proficiency means or proportions of those
groups for the sample. This estimate of the degree of uncertainty -- called the standard error of the
difference between the groups -- is obtained by taking the square of each group's standard error, summing
these squared standard errors, and then taking the square root of this sum.
Similar to the manner in which the standard error for an individual group mean or proportion is used, the
standard error of the difference can be used to help determine whether differences between groups in the
population are real. The difference between the mean proficiency or proportion of the two groups t 2
standard errors of the difference represents an approximate 95 percent confidence interval. If the resulting
interval includes zero, one should conclude that there is insufficient evidence to claim a real difference
between groups in the population. If the interval does not contain zero, the difference between groups is
statisticalty significant (different) at the .05 level.
As an example, suppose that one were interested in determining whether the average mathematics
proficiency of eighth-grade females is higher than that of eighth-grade males in a particular state's public
schools. Suppose that the sample estimates of the mean proficiencies and standard errors for females and
males were as follows:
Group
Average
Proficiency
Standard
Error
,
Female
.
259
2.0
Male
-
255
2.1
The difference between the estimates of the mean proficiencies of females and males is four points (259 -
255). The standard error of this difference is
4.02 + 2.12 = 2.9
Thus, an approximate 95 percent confidence interval for this difference is
Mean difference ± 2 standard errors of the difference =
4 ± 2
(2.9) = 4 ± 5.8 = 4 - 5.8 and 4 + 5.8 = -1.8, 9.8
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
111
120
'Pugin Islands
The value zero is within this confidence interval, which extends from -1.8 to 9.8 (i.e., zero is between -1.8
and 9.8). Thus, one should conclude that there is insufficient evidence to claim a difference in average
mathematics proficiency between the population of eighth-grade females and males in public schools in the
state.
2
Throughout this report, when the mean proficiencies or proportions for two groups were compared,
procedures like the one described above were used to draw the conclusions that are presented.
If a
statement appears in the report indicating that a particular group had higher (or lower) average proficiency
than a second group, the 95 percent confidence interval for the difference between groups did not contain
zero. When a statement indicates that the average proficiency or proportion of some attribute was about
the same for two groups, the confidence interval included zero, and thus no difference could be assumed
between the groups. The information described in tbis section also pertains to comparisons between 1990
and 1992. The reader is cautioned to avoid drawing conclusions solely on the basis of the magnitude of the
differences. A difference between two groups in the sample that appears to be slight may represent a
statistically significant difference in the population because of the magnitude of the standard errors.
Conversely, a difference that appears to be large may not be statistically significant.
The procedures described in this section, and the certainty ascribed to intervals (e.g., a 95 percent
confidence interval), are based on statistical theory that assumes that only one confidence interval or test of
statistical significance is being performed. However, in each chapter of this report, many different groups
are being compared (i.e., multiple sets of confidence intervals are being analyzed). When on considers sets
of confidence intervals, statistical theory indicates that the certainty associated with the entire set of intervals
is less than that attributable to each individual comparison from the set.
If one wants to hold the certainty
level for the set of comparisons at a particular level (e.g., 95), adjustments (called multiple comparison
procedures) must be made to the methods described in the previous section. One such procedure -- the
Bonferroni method
was used in the analyses described in this report to form confidence intervals for the
differences between groups whenever sets of comparisons were considered. Thus, the confidence intervals
in the text that are based on sets of comparisons are more conservative than those described on the
previous pages. A more detailed description of the use of the Bonferroni procedure appears in the Trial
State Assessment technical report.
Statistics with Poorly Determined Standard Errors
The standard errors for means and proportions reported by NAEP are statistics and therefore are subject to
a certain degree of uncertainty. In certain cases, typically when the standard error is based on a small
number of students, or when the group of students is enrolled in a number of schools, the amount of
uncertainty associated with the standard errors may be quite large. Throughout this report, estimates of
standard errors subject to a large degree of uncertainty are followed by the symbol "!".
In such cases, the
standard errors
and any confidence intervals or significance tests involving these standard errors -- should
be interpreted cautiously. Further details concerning procedures for identifying such standard errors are
discussed in the Trial State Assessment technical report.
2
The procedure described above (especially the estimation of the standard error of the difference) is, in a strict sense, only
appropriate when the statistics being compared come from independent samples. For certain comparisons in the report, the
groups were not independent. In those cases, a different (and more appropriate) estimate of the standard error of the difference
was used.
112
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
121
Trugin Is
Minimum Subgroup Sample Sizes
Results for mathematics proficiency and background variables were tabulated and reported for groups
defined by race/ethnicity, type of school community, gender, and parents' education level. NAEP collects
data for five racial/ethnic subgroups (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and American
Indian/Alaskan Native), four types of communities (Advantaged Urban, Disadvantaged Urban, Extreme
Rural, and Other Communities), and five levels of parents' education (Graduated College, Some Education
After High School, Graduated High School, Did Not Finish High School, and I Don't Know). However, in
many states or territories, and for some regions of the country, the number of students in some of these
groups was not sufficiently high to permit accurate estimation of proficiency and/or background variable
results. As a result, data are not provided for the subgroups with very small sample sizes. For results to
be reported for any subgroup, a minimum sample of 62 students was required. For statistical tests
pertaining to subgroups or to a trend from 1990 to 1992, the sample size for both groups had to be at least
62. This number was determined by computing the sample size required to detect an effect size of .2 total-
group standard deviation units with a probability of .8 or greater.
The effect size of .2 pertains to the true difference between the average proficiency of the subgroups in
question and the average proficiency for the total eighth-grade public-school population in the state or
territory, divided by the standard deviation of the proficiency in the total population. If the true difference
between subgroup and total group mean is .2 total-group standard deviation units, then a sample size of at
least 62 is required to detect such a difference with a probability of .8. Further details about the procedure
for determining minimum sample size appear in the Trial State Assessment technical report.
Describing the Size of Percentages
Some of the percentages reported in the text of the report are given quantitative descriptions. For example,
the number of students being taught by teachers with master's degrees in mathematics might be described
as "relatively few" or "almost all," depending on the size of the percentage in question. Any convention for
choosing descriptive terms for the magnitude of percentages is to some degree arbitrary. The descriptive
phrases used in the report and the rules used to select them are shown below.
Percentage
Description
of Text in
eport
p = 0
None
0 < p s 10
1
Relatively few
10 < p s 20
Some
20 < p s 30
About one quarter
30 < p s 44
Less than half
44 < p s 55
About half
55 < p s 69
More than half
69 < p s 79
About three quarters
79 < p s 89
Many
89 < p < 100
.
Almost all
p = 100
All
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
122
113
Vugin Islands
Reanalysis of 1990 Results
An enhanced version of the statistical procedures employed in 1990 was used to obtain results for the 1992
mathematics assessment. Preliminary research with simulated data and experience with selected reanalyses
of previously reported 1990 NAEP data sets suggested that small, but consistent, differences in the results
produced by the two sets of procedures would be obtained. The nature and magnitude of such differences
would have little or no effect on state-to-state and state-to-nation comparisons. However, certain
within-state comparisons between 1992 and 1990 would be affected to a degree that is not ignorable.
In order to maintain the integrity of the 1990 NAEP mathematics scales for trend analysis, a decision was
made to reanalyze the 1990 results and report revised figures. The 1990 estimates given in the 1992 state
reports are based on the reanalyzed 1990 results. In the vast majority of cases, the reanalyzed results will
differ trivially, if at all, from those originally reported and the magnitudes of the differences between the
original and reanalyzed results rarely exceed a standard error. Slightly larger, but still modest, differences
between the original and reanalyzed results may be observed for the composite-scale standard deviations
and proportions of students at or above NAEP anchor levels.
114
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
123
Virgin Islands
ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS
APPENDIX
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Trial State Assessment
Setting achievement levels is a method for setting standards on the NAEP assessment that identifies what
students should know and should be able to do at various points along the proficiency scale. The method
depends on securing and summarizing a set of judgmental ratings of expectations for student educational
performance on specific items. The NAEP proficiency scale is a numerical index of students' performance
in mathematics ranging from 0 to 500 and has three achievement levels -- Basic, Proficient, and Advanced --
mapped onto it for each grade level assessed.
In developing the threshold values for the levels, a broadly constituted panel of judges -- including teachers
(50 percent), non-teacher educators (20 percent), and non-educators (30 percent) -- rated a grade-specific
item pool using the Board's policy defmitions for Basic, Proficient, and Advanced.' The policy defmitions
are as follows:
BASIC
PROFICIENT
ADVANCED
This level, below Proficient, denotes partial mastery of the knowledge and skills that
are fundamental for proficient work at each grade.
This central level represents solid academic performance for each grade tested.
Students reaching this level have demonstrated competency over challenging subject
matter and are well prepared for the next level of schooling.
This higher level signifies superior performance beyond proficient grade-level mastery
at each grade.
i
Non-educators represented business, labor, government service, parents, and the general public.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
115
124
Virgin Islands
The policy definitions were operationalized by the judges in terms of specific mathematical skills,
knowledge, and behaviors that were in accordance with the current mathematics assessment framework, and
were generally agreed to be appropriate expectations for students in each grade at each level. The judges'
operationalized definitions were incorporated into lists of descriptors that represented what borderline
students should be able to do at each of the policy levels. The purpose of having panelists develop their
own operational defmitions of the achievement levels was to ensure that all panelists would have a common
understanding of borderline performances and a common set of content-based referents to use during the
item-rating process.
The judges (22 at grade 8) each rated half of the items in the NAEP pool in terms of the expected
probability that a student at a borderline achievement level would answer the item correctly, based on the
judges' operationalization of the policy definitions and the factors that influence item difficulty. To assist
the judges in generating consistently-scaled ratings, the rating process was repeated twice, with feedback.
Information on consistency among different judges and on the difficulty of each item 2 was fed back into
the first repetition (round 2), while information on consistency within each judge's set of ratings was fed
back into the second repetition (round 3). The third round of ratings permitted the judges to discuss their
ratings among themselves to resolve problematic ratings. The mean fmal rating of the judges aggregated
across items yielded the threshold values in the percent correct metric. These cut scores were then mapped
onto the NAEP scale (which is defined and scored using item response theory, rather than percent correct)
to obtain the scale scores for the achievement levels. The judges' ratings, in both metrics, and their
associated errors of measurement are shown below. The Board accepted the panel's achievement levels
and, for reporting purposes, set final cutpoints one standard error (a measure of consistency among the
judges' ratings) below the mean levels.
FIGURE L1
I Cutpoints for Achievement Levels
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mal State Assessment
mop
Grade
Level
Mean Percent
Correct
(Round 3)
Scale Score
(From Mean
Percents)
Standard
Error of
Scale Score
Scale Score
Cutpolnt for
Reporting
8
8
8
Basic
Proficient
Advanced
48
71
87
258
300
336
2.4
5.7
4.8
256
294
331
After the ratings were completed, the judges for each grade level reviewed the operationalized descriptions
developed by the judges of the other grade levels as well as their own descriptions and came up with
achievement level descriptions that were generally acceptable to all three grade-group judges. However, the
descriptions varied in format, sharpness of the language, and degree of specificity of the statements.
Therefore, another panel at a subsequent validation meeting improved the wording and modified the
2
116
Item difficulty estimates were based on a preliminary, partial set of responses to the national assessment.
125
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Virgin Islands
language of the achievement level descriptions to reflect more closely the terminology of the NCTM
standards for mathematics.3
Finally, for each achievement level, exemplar items needed to be selected that reflected the kinds of tasks
that examinees at or above the level were likely to be able to perform successfully. While the judges
discussed items and made recommendations, the task of final selection was put to a subsequent validation
panel. Several criteria were used to select items as candidates for exemplars. From the pool of items
scheduled for public release, items were deleted that students at any level were more likely to get wrong
than right (expected p-value s .50). Remaining items that did not match any of the descriptions were also
deleted. A few items were deleted that did not have increasing p-values from Basic, to Proficient, to
Advanced. The validation panels then reviewed the matched and classified item sets and selected exemplars
based on the quality of the items, the way the items collectively represented the subscales, and the
appropriateness of the items to the grade (for items administered to more than one grade). In Chapter 1,
Figure 2 provides the final descriptions of the three achievement levels for grade 8, along with exemplar
items to illustrate what students at each level should be able to perform. In principle, the descriptions of
the levels, though based on the 1992 item pool, apply to the current assessment framework and will not
change from year to year (that is, until the framework changes). However, the sample items reflective of
the levels will need to be updated each time the assessment is administered. Table 4 in Chapter 1 provides
the percentage of students at or above each of the three levels and the percentage of students below the
Basic level for eighth grade.
3
Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. (Reston, Va: National Council of Teachers of Mathematic, 1989).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
117
126
'Pugin Islands
SCALE ANCHORING
APPENDIX
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Trial State Assessment
Scale anchoring is a method for defining performance along a proficiency scale to characterize what
students know and can do at each level that differentiates them from students performing at lower levels.
NAEP summarized students' overall mathematics performance on a 0 to 500 proficiency scale anchored at
four points -- level 200, 250, 300, and 350!
To develop the descriptions of the skills, knowledge, and understandings that characterize each anchor level,
NAEP used the 1990 and 1992 assessment results to identify sets of questions typically answered correctly
by most students at a particular level but answered incorrectly by a majority of students at the next lower
level. The criteria for selecting these "benchmark questions are as follows:
To define performance at level 200, items were chosen that were answered correctly
by at least 65 percent of the students whose proficiency was at or near 200 on the
scale.
To defme performance at each of the higher levels on the scale, items were chosen
that were: a) answered correctly by at least 65 percent of the students whose
proficiency was at or near that level; and b) answered incorrectly by a majority (at
least 50 percent) of the students performing at or near the next lower level.
The percentage of students at a level who answered the item correctly had to be at
least 30 points higher than the average percentage of students at the next lower
level who answered it correctly.
Once these empirically selected sets of questions had been identified, the four sets of anchor questions were
studied by a panel of mathematics educators to characterize the types of knowledge, skills, and reasoning
abilities needed to answer each set of questions. Each of the four anchor levels was defined by describing
the types of mathematics questions that most students attaining that anchor level would be able to perform
successfully.
Defining anchor levels below 200 and above 350 is theoretically possible; however, so few students performed at the extreme
ends of the scale that it was impractical to define meaningful levels of mathematics proficiency beyond the four presented here.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
119
127
'Pugin Islands
Figure S1 provides a definition of the four anchor levels. Table S1 provides the percentages of students at
or above each of the four anchor levels. It is important to note that the definitions of these levels are
based solely on the results from the 1990 and 1992 national mathematics assessments of fourth-, eighth-,
and twelfth-grade students. The levels are not judgmental standards of what ought to be achieved at a
particular grade.
FIGURE S1
I Levels of Mathematics Proficiency
LEVEL
200
Addition and Subtraction, and Simple Problem Solving with Whole Numbers
Students at or above this level can identify solutions to one-step word problems involving addition or subtraction. They can add
and subtract whole numbers in most situations, and when a calculator is available, they can multiply and divide. They are able
to select the largest whole number from a set of numbers in the thousands, and can match the verbal and symbolic names for
numbers.
Students demonstrate familiarity with length and weight by selecting appropriate instruments and units to measure these attributes.
They are able to recognize some basic properties of two-dimensional geometric figures as well as the names of standard examples
of these figures. They can extend simple patterns.
LEVEL
250
Multiplication and Division, Simple Measurement, and Two-Step Problem Solving
When presented with a problem situation, students at or above this level have some understanding of the problem, can identify
extraneous information, and have some knowledge of when to use computational estimation. They have an understanding of
addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division with whole numbers. They can solve one- and simple two-step problems involving
whole numbers. They are able to round whole numbers and solve simple word problems involving place value, estimation, and
multiples.
Students can use a ruler to measure length in centimeters and have some understanding of area and perimeter. They can solve
simple problems using readings from instruments. They demonstrate a knowledge of properties of triangles, squares, rectangles,
circles, and cubes. They can solve problems that require visualizing, drawing, or manipulating simple geometric shapes. They
are able to complete bar graphs and pictographs, as well as use information from graphs or tables to solve simple problems. They
can recognize simple number patterns, are beginning to deal informally with the idea of a variable, and have some knowledge
of simple probability.
120
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
128
FIGURE S1 I Lewis of Mathematics Proficiency
(continued)
nE PIATien
REPORT
LEVEL
300
Reasoning and Problem Solving Involving Fractions, Decimals, Percents, and
Elementary Concepts in Geometry, Statistics, and Algebra
Students at or above this level can use various strategies and explain their reasoning in a variety of problem solving situations.
They are able to solve problems involving not only whole numbers but also decimals and fractions. They can represent and find
equivalent fractions and use these concepts in solving routine problems. They can find percents of a number and use this skill
in simple problems.
Multiplication and division of whole numbers have developed to the extent that students can use all four
operations in multi-step problems.
Students can read and use instruments in more complex situations. They can find areas of rectangles. recognize relationships
among common units of measure, and solve routine problems Involving similar triangles and scale drawings.
They have
knowledge of definitions and properties of simple geometric figures in the plane. Their spatial sense includes the ability to visualize
a cube in either three-space or its flattened form in a plane.
Students can calculate averages, select and interpret data from a variety of graphs, list the possible arrangements in a sample
space, find the probability of a simple event, and have a beginning understanding of sample bias. They can use knowledge of
relative frequencies in simple simulation situations.
Students show the ability to evaluate simple expressions and solve linear
equations. Students can graph points on coordinate axes, locate the missing coordinates for a corner of a square, and Identify
which ordered pairs satisfy a given linear equation.
LEVEL
350
Reasoning and Problem Solving Involving Geometric Relationships, Algebra, and
Functions
Students at or above this level can reason and estimate with percents. They can recognize scientific notation and find the decimal
equivalent. They can apply their knowledge of area and perimeter of simple geometric figures to solve problems. They can find
the circumferences of circles and the surface areas of solid figures. they can solve for the length of missing segments in more
complex similarity situations. Students can apply the Pythagorean Theorem to find the hypotenuse of a right triangle. They are
beginning to use rectangular coordinates in problem solving situations and can apply geometric properties and relationships in
solving problems.
Students can compute means from frequency tables, create a sample space to determine probabilities, and read the graph of a
step-function. Students can use exponents and evaluate expressions given in functional notation. In number theory, they have
an understanding of even and odd numbers and their properties.
They can identify an equation describing a linear relation
provided in a table, and solve literal equations and systems of two linear equations. They have some knowledge of trigonometric
relations. These students can represent and interpret complex patterns and data using numbers, expressions, and graphs. Given
the graph of a function, they can identify its zeros and the effect on the graph of taking the absolute value of the function.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
129
121
Viigin Islands
ME NATION'S
REPORT
rARD
1
TABLE S1
Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School
Mathematics Proficiency
Level 350
Level 300
1990 Grade 8
I
1992 Grade 8
1990 Grade 8
I
1992 Grade 8
70TAL
Percentage of Students
Percentage of Students
State
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
1 ( 0.3)
1 ( 0.3)
Nation
1
( 0.3)
1
( 0.2)
15 ( 1.1)
18 ( 0.9)>
RACE/EMNICITY
Black
State
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
1 ( 0.4)
1 ( 0.3)
Nation
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.2)
4 ( 1.1)
2 ( 0.5)
Hispanic
State
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.2)
0 ( 0.0)
Nation
0 ( 0.1)
0 ( 0.1)
4 ( 1.4)
5 ( 0.8)
7YPE OF COMMUNITY
Extreme rural
State
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.4)
0 ( 0.5)
Nation
0 ( 0.0)!
0 ( 0.4)!
9 ( 2.5)!
16 ( 3.2)1
Other
State
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
1
( 0.4)
0 ( 0.2)
Nation
0 ( 0.2)
1 ( 0.2)
14 ( 1.2)
19 ( 1.0)>
PARENTS EDUCA770N
College graduate
State
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
1 ( 0.9)
2 ( 1.0)
Nation
1 ( 0.4)
1 ( 0.3)
24 ( 2.2)
30 ( 1.7)
Some college
State
0 ( 0.3)
0 ( 0.0)
1
( 0.8)
1 ( 1.2)
Nation
1
( 0.7)
0 ( 0.4)
14 ( 2.1)
19 ( 1.3)
High school graduate
State
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
1
( 0.4)
0 ( 0.3)
Nation
0 ( 0.2)
0 ( 0.0)
8 ( 1.3)
9 ( 1.0)
High school non-graduate
State
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
Nation
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.2)
3 ( 1.1)
6 ( 1.6)
I don't know
State
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.1)
0 ( 0.3)
Nation
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.1)
5 ( 1.6)
8 ( 1.2)
GENDER
/
Male
State
0 ( 0.1)
0 ( 0.0)
1 ( 0.6)
1 ( 0.4)
Nation
1
( 0.4)
1 ( 0.3)
16 ( 1.4)
19 (1.2)
Female
State
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.2)
0 ( 0.2)
Nation
0 ( 0.1)
1
( 0.2)
13 ( 1.1)
18 ( 1.3)>
-
122
13 0
(continued on next page)
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Vugin Islands
ME NATION'S
TABLE Si
I
Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mal State Assessmaat
(continued)
I
Mathematics Proficiency
Level 250
Level 200
1990 Grade 8
I
1992 Grade 8
1990 Grade 8
I
1992 Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students
Percentage of Students
State
14 ( 1.0)
18 ( 1.4)
74 ( 1.3)
76 ( 1.7)
Nation
64 ( 1.4)
67 ( 1.1)
95 ( 0.7)
96 ( 0.4)
RACE/ETHNICITY
Black
State
15 ( 1.4)
20 ( 1.6)
78 ( 1.3)
78 ( 1.9)
Nation
34 ( 3.2)
32 ( 2.3)
86 ( 2.8)
88 ( 1.7)
Hispanic
State
8 ( 1.6)
10 ( 1.8)
61 ( 3.1)
68 ( 3.6)
Nation
43 ( 4.0)
44 ( 2.1)
89 ( 2.0)
91 ( 1.4)
7YPE OF COMMUNRY
Extreme rural
State
8 ( 3.7)
16 ( 2.4)
63 ( 2.9)
67 ( 3.5)
Nation
58 ( 6.8)1
71 ( 5.7)1
95 ( 2.7)1
98 ( 1.1)1
Other
State
15 ( 1.0)
14 ( 1.6)
76 ( 1.4)
73 ( 2.6)
Nation
64 ( 1.9)
69 ( 1.5)
95 ( 1.1)
97 ( 0.4)
PARENTS' EDUCATION
College graduate
State
15 ( 1.9)
20 ( 2.2)
76 ( 2.8)
79 ( 3.1)
Nation
76 ( 1.8)
78 ( 1.3)
97 ( 0.5)
98 ( 0.5)
Some college
State
21 ( 3.7)
28 ( 4.5)
83 ( 4.2)
87 ( 2.6)
Nation
70 ( 1.8)
73 ( 1.5)
97 ( 1.4)
98 ( 0.8)
High school graduate
State
15 ( 1.7)
17 ( 2.1)
75 ( 2.9)
76 ( 3.5)
Nation
57 ( 2.4)
57 ( 2.1)
95 ( 1.3)
95 ( 1.0)
High school non-graduate
State
9 ( 2.3)
15 ( 2.8)
64 ( 3.9)
75 ( 4.2)
Nation
39 ( 3.6)
46 ( 3.5)
93 ( 2.1)
94 ( 1.3)
I don't know
State
12 ( 2.2)
14 ( 2.3)
73 ( 2.6)
70 ( 2.6)
Nation
40 ( 3.4)
49 ( 2.6)
85 ( 3.4)
93 ( 1.2)
GENDER
Male
State
15 ( 1.8)
17 ( 2.0)
76 ( 1.7)
76 ( 2.8)
Nation
64 ( 2.0)
66 ( 1.3)
95 ( 0.9)
96 ( 0.6)
Female
State
12 ( 1.0)
18 ( 1.7)>
72 ( 2.3)
77 ( 1.7)
Nation
63 ( 1.6)
67 ( 1.3)
95 ( 0.8)
97 ( 0.5)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said 'with about 95 percent confidence that, for each
population of interest, the value for the entire population is within I 2 standard errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing
two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for details).
If the notation > appears, it
signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation
< appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated statistic.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
1 3 1
123
Vugin Islands
DATA APPENDIX
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARO
1992
Trial State Auessment
Mep
For each of the tables in the main body of the report that presents mathematics proficiency results, this
appendix contains corresponding data for each level of the four reporting subpopulations -- race/ethnicity, type
of community, parents' education level, and gender.
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
125
132
Virgin Islands
ME NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Thal State Asseument
TABLE A16
1
Eighth-Grade Students' Reports on the
Mathematics Class They are Taking
Eighth-grade Mathematics
Pre-algebra
Algebra
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
88 ( 0.7)
78 ( 0.9)<
3 ( 0.5)
14 ( 0.7)>
6 ( 0.6)
6 ( 0.5)
217 ( 1.0)
219 ( 1.2)
*** (**.*)
231 ( 2.5)
238 ( 5.1)
249 ( 3.9)
Nation
62 ( 2.1)
50 ( 2.9)<
19 ( 1.9)
28 ( 2.5)>
15 ( 1.2)
19 ( 1.2)
251 ( 1.4)
253 ( 1.5)
271 ( 2.6)
271 ( 1.7)
298 ( 2.4)
299 ( 2.0)
RACE/ETHNIC/TY
Black
State
87 ( 0.9)
79 ( 1.0)<
3 ( 0.6)
13 ( 0.9)>
6 ( 0.6)
6 ( 0.6)
219 ( 1.2)
221 ( 1.3)
*** (**.*)
234 ( 3.3)
243 ( 5.9)
254 ( 3.8)
Nation
72 ( 4.7)
60 ( 4.1)
16 ( 3.0)
23 ( 3.9)
9 ( 2.2)
13 ( 1.9)
234 ( 3.3)
229 ( 1.4)
246 ( 6.3)
246 ( 3.3)
*** (**.*)
257 ( 5.0)
Hispanic
State
93 ( 1.7)
76 ( 2.5)<
2 ( 0.6)
17 ( 1.8)>
4 ( 1.2)
4 ( 1.3)
210 ( 1.6)
211 ( 2.1)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
***
Nation
75 ( 4.4)
64 ( 3.2)
13 ( 3.9)
20 ( 2.7)
6 ( 1.5)
11 ( 1.2)
238 (2.7)
239 ( 1.6)
*** (**.*)
255 ( 2.9)
*** (**.*)
273 ( 5.5)
TYPE OF COMMUNHY
Extreme rural
State
85 ( 1.5)
61 ( 2.9)<
3 ( 1.1)
37 ( 3.0)>
9 ( 1.6)
1 ( 0.7)<
Nation
207 ( 2.6)
207 ( 2.6)
*** (**.*)
231 ( 4.6)
*** (**.*)
74 ( 4.5)1
50 ( 8.9)!
14 ( 5.0)!
37 ( 9.2)!
7 ( 2.2)1
10 ( 3.1)1
Other
250 ( 3.6)1
263 ( 5.4)1
*** (**.*)
267 ( 8.8)1
*** (**.*)
State
89 ( 0.8)
81 ( 1.2)<
3 ( 0.6)
10 ( 0.8)>
5 ( 0.6)
6 ( 0.7)
Nation
219 ( 1.0)
216 ( 1.4)
*** (**.*)
232 ( 3.1)
61 ( 2.2)
48 ( 3.5)<
20 ( 2.1)
28 ( 3.0)
16 ( 1.4)
20 ( 1.3)
251 ( 2.0)
255 ( 1.8)
272 (2.9)
272 ( 1.5)
296 ( 2.8)
299 ( 2.2)
126
133
(continued on next page)
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
rugin Islands
ME NATION'S
REPORT Worp
CARD
1992
Mal State Assessment
TABLE A16
Eighth-Grade Students' Reports on the
(continued)
Mathematics Class They are Taking
Eighth-grade Mathematics
Pre-algebra
Algebra
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
88 ( 0.7)
78 ( 0.9)<
3 ( 0.5)
14 ( 0.7)>
6 ( 0.6)
6 ( 0.5)
217 ( 1.0)
219 ( 1.2)
*** (**.*)
231 ( 2.5)
238 ( 5.1)
249 ( 3.9)
Nation
62 ( 2.1)
50 ( 2.9)<
19 ( 1.9)
28 ( 2.5)>
15 ( 1.2)
19 ( 1.2)
251 ( 1.4)
253 ( 1.5)
271 ( 2.6)
271 ( 1.7)
298 ( 2.4)
299 ( 2.0)
PARENTS'
EDUCATION
College grad.
State
85 ( 2.0)
74 ( 2.3)<
4 ( 1.7)
15 ( 1.7)>
8 ( 1.6)
8 ( 1.5)
218 ( 1.6)
219 ( 2.0)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
53 ( 2.7)
39 ( 3.0)<
21 ( 2.3)
29 ( 2.7)
24 ( 1.7)
29 ( 2.0)
259 ( 1.8)
261 ( 2.3)
278 ( 3.0)
277 ( 1.7)
305 ( 2.4)
306 ( 1.9)
Some college
State
85 ( 3.5)
80 ( 2.5)
5 ( 1.9)
14 ( 2.2)
7 ( 2.7)
5 ( 1.5)
226 ( 2.4)
230 ( 2.9)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
60 ( 3.1)
49 ( 3.9)
21 ( 2.9)
29 ( 3.3)
15 ( 1.9)
19 ( 1.5)
258 ( 2.0)
259 ( 1.7)
275 ( 3.2)
272 ( 1.9)
298 ( 3.7)
300 ( 3.2)
HS graduate
State
91 ( 1.5)
77 ( 2.3)<
2 ( 0.4)
15 ( 2.2)>
4 ( 1.2)
5 ( 1.3)
218 ( 1.8)
218 ( 2.2)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
70 ( 2.6)
57 ( 3.6)
18 ( 2.4)
28 ( 3.5)
8 ( 1.1)
11 ( 1.1)
249 ( 1.8)
248 ( 1.5)
266 ( 3.6)
265 ( 2.7)
277 ( 5.3)
281 ( 3.5)
HS non-grad.
State
88 ( 2.0)
79 ( 2.3)<
2 ( 1.1)
14 ( 2.2)>
7 ( 1.6)
4 ( 1.1)
212 ( 2.6)
216 ( 2.5)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
77 ( 3.7)
64 ( 3.3)
13 ( 3.4)
23 ( 2.9)
3 ( 1.1)
6 ( 1.0)
239 ( 2.0)
245 ( 2.5)
*** (**.*)
261 ( 4.6)
Don't know
State
90 ( 1.4)
80 ( 2.2)<
2 ( 0.7)
12 ( 1.9)>
4 ( 0.8)
5 ( 0.8)
215 ( 2.0)
215 ( 1.5)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
70 ( 3.5)
62 ( 2.7)
16 ( 3.4)
22 ( 3.1)
9 ( 2.0)
10 ( 1.7)
235 ( 3.2)
244 ( 2.2)
*RR (**.)
264 ( 3.1)
*** (**.*)
281 ( 6.0)
GENDER
Male
State
86 ( 1.2)
78 ( 1.1)<
3 ( 0.8)
14 ( 1.0)>
6 ( 1.0)
5 ( 0.8)
220 ( 1.2)
219 ( 1.7)
*** (**.*)
231 ( 3.8)
*** (t*.*)
Nation
63 ( 2.1)
50 ( 2.8)<
18 ( 1.8)
27 ( 2.7)>
15 ( 1.2)
18 ( 1.1)
252 ( 1.7)
254 ( 1.5)
275 ( 3.1)
271 ( 1.9)
301 ( 2.8)
298 ( 2.3)
Female
State
90 ( 1.1)
78 ( 1.4)<
2 ( 0.5)
14 ( 1.3)>
6 ( 0.7)
7 ( 0.9)
215 ( 1.3)
219 ( 1.4)
*** (**.*)
231 ( 2.6)
*** (**.*)
Nation
61 ( 2.6)
49 ( 3.0)<
20 ( 2.3)
28 ( 2.5)
15 ( 1.7)
20 ( 1.5)
251 ( 1.5)
253 ( 1.8)
268 ( 3.2)
271 ( 2.0)
295 ( 2.9)
300 ( 2.4)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errcas of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said
with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors of
the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for
details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent
confidence level.
If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the
95 percent confidence level. The percentages may not total 100 percent because a small number of students reported taking other or no
mathematics classes.
! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this
estimated statistic. "' Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
BEST COPY AVAILARI f
13
2
127
Virgin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Ttlai State Asseument
1
TABLE A 17A
Teachers' Reports on the Amount of
Mathematics Homework Assigned Each Day
Grade 8
None
I
15 Minutes
I
30 Minutes
I
45 Minutes
I An Hour or More
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and Average Math Proficiency
State
1 ( 0.2)
19 ( 0.8)
46 ( 1.2)
20 ( 0.9)
14 ( 0.9)
216 ( 1.5)
219 ( 1.7)
232 ( 2.1)
218 ( 4.1)
Nation
3 ( 0.7)
29 ( 2.1)
48 ( 2.6)
15 ( 2.0)
4 ( 0.9)
232 ( 4.1)!
262 ( 1.8)
267 ( 1.5)
282 ( 3.8)
286 ( 5.4)1
RACE/E7HNICITY
Black
.
State
1 ( 0.3)
19 ( 1.1)
45 ( 1.2)
20 ( 1.0),
14 ( 1.2)
218 ( 1.7)
222 ( 2.0)
236 ( 2.8)
219 ( 4.5)
Nation
6 ( 2.7)
30 ( 3.8)
49 ( 4.8)
11 ( 2.1)
4 ( 1.3)
231 ( 2.8)
238 ( 2.1)
253 ( 6.9)1
***
Hispanic
State
1 ( 0.6)
19 ( 1.7)
49 ( 2.7)
17 ( 2.2)
14 ( 2.1)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
212 ( 2.8)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
2 ( 0.9)
27 ( 3.1)
51 ( 4.0)
15 ( 3.3)
4 ( 1.4)
*** (**.*)
244 ( 2.5)
247 ( 2.3)
247 ( 4.3)1
***
TYPE OF COMMUNTTY
Extreme rural
State
3 ( 0.8)
0 ( 0.0)
60 ( 2.3)
0 ( 0.0)
37 ( 2.3)
216 ( 2.7)
*** (**.*)
216 ( 6.0)
Nation
6 ( 3.6)!
21 ( 6.5)!
50 ( 9.1)!
17 ( 5.7)1
6 ( 5.1)1
269 ( 8.3)1
261 ( 5.5)1
288 ( 9.0)1
***
Other
State
0 ( 0.0)
25 ( 1.6)
40 ( 1.9)
24 ( 1.5)
11 ( 1.6)
*** (**.*)
214 ( 2.2)
213 ( 3.2)
217 ( 2.4)
Nation
2 ( 0.5)
30 ( 2.3)
51 ( 2.6)
14 (2.0)
4 ( 0.9)
263 ( 2.0)
269 ( 1.7)
280 (4.3)
292 ( 5.7)1
(continued on next page
128
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
135
Vugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mal State Assessment
TABLE Al7A
(continued)
Teachers' Reports on the Amount of
Mathematics Homework Assigned Each Day
Grade 8
None
I
15 Minutes
I
30 Minutes
I
45 Minutes
I An Hour or More
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and Averape Math Proficiency
State
1 ( 0.2)
19 ( 0.8)
46 ( 1.2)
20 ( 0.9)
14 ( 0.9)
*** (**.*)
216 ( 1.5)
219 ( 1.7)
232 ( 2.1)
218 ( 4.1)
Nation
3 ( 0.7)
29 ( 2.1)
48 ( 2.6)
15 ( 2.0)
4 ( 0.9)
232 ( 4.1)!
262 ( 1.8)
267 ( 1.5)
282 ( 3.8)
286 ( 5.4)1
PARENTS'
EDUCATION
.
College grad.
State
1 ( 0.6)
22 ( 2.8)
45 ( 2.9)
19 ( 2.4)
14 ( 1.8)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
221 ( 3.5)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
2 ( 0.6)
26 ( 2.4)
47 ( 3.0)
19 ( 2.9)
5 ( 1.2)
*** (**.*)
270 ( 2.2)
280 ( 2.2)
294 ( 3.6)
301 ( 5.0)1
Some college
State
0 ( 0.0)
14 ( 2.5)
57 ( 3.9)
18 ( 3.0)
12 ( 3.5)
(**.*)
229 ( 3.1)
*** (**.*)
***
Nation
2 ( 0.8)
29 ( 2.8)
48 ( 3.1)
16 ( 2.0)
5 ( 1.6)
264 ( 2.7)
269 ( 1.9)
282 ( 4.3)
HS graduate
State
0 ( 0.3)
18 ( 1.6)
45 ( 2.3)
23 ( 1.9)
13 ( 1.7)
220 ( 1.9)
230 ( 4.8)
*** (**.*)
Nation
3 ( 1.1)
34 ( 2.9)
50 ( 3.2)
11 ( 2.4)
3 ( 0.8)
258 ( 2.4)
256 ( 1.8)
259 ( 6.0)!
*** (**.*)
HS non-grad.
State
3 ( 0.9)
22 ( 3.1)
43 ( 4.4)
21 ( 3.5)
12 ( 3.0)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
216 ( 3.0)
*** (**.*)
***
Nation
5 ( 1.5)
31 ( 3.4)
49 ( 3.8)
13 ( 3.2)
2 ( 0.5)
250 ( 2.7)
251 ( 2.2)
257 ( 5.2)1
***
Don't know
State
0 ( 0.4)
19 ( 2.3)
46 ( 3.0)
16 ( 2.1)
19 ( 2.0)
(**.*)
214 ( 3.1)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
3 ( 1.4)
28 ( 2.5)
53 ( 4.2)
11 ( 2.5)
4 ( 1.3)
245 ( 2.8)
252 ( 2.0)
GENDER
Male
State
1 ( 0.4)
19 ( 1.4)
49 ( 2.0)
18 ( 1.3)
12 ( 1.4)
215 ( 2.6)
220 ( 2.0)
231 ( 2.4)
218 ( 6.2)
Nation
3 ( 0.9)
32 ( 2.4)
47 ( 2.6)
14 ( 1.8)
4 ( 0.9)
231 ( 4.6)/
261 ( 1.9)
268 ( 1.8)
282 ( 4.1)
283 ( 6.8)1
Female
State
0 ( 0.0)
19 ( 1.7)
43 ( 2.2)
22 ( 1.6)
16 ( 2.1)
*** (...*)
217 ( 2.2)
219 ( 2.5)
233 ( 3.5)
218 ( 3.6)
Nation
2 ( 0.6)
27 ( 1.9)
50 ( 2.9)
16 ( 2.4)
4 ( 1.0)
262 ( 2.1)
267 ( 1.7)
281 ( 4.8)
289 ( 5.3)1
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details). Comparisons between 1990 and 1992 are not possible for the teacher responses because of changes in the form
of the question that they were asked.
! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the
variability of this estimated statistic.
*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
136
129
Virgin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT pa- 17p
CARD
1
TABLE A17B
Students' Reports on the Amount of Time
Spent on Mathematics Homework Each Day
None
15 Minutes
30 Minutes
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990 Grade
8
1992
Grade 8
1990 Grade
8
1992
Grade 8
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
fur/AL
State
8 ( 0.7)
8 ( 0.8)
33 ( 1.5)
32 ( 1.1)
26 ( 1.1)
29 ( 1.3)
218 ( 3.9)
221 ( 2.8)
219 ( 1.7)
222 ( 1.7)
222 ( 1.7)
227 ( 1.6)
Nation
9 (0.8)
8 ( 0.4)
31 ( 2.0)
28 ( 0.8)
32 ( 1.2)
35 ( 0.7)>
251 ( 2.9)
253 ( 2.4)
264 ( 1.7)
268 ( 1.4)
263 ( 1.9)
268 ( 1.3)
RACE/
ETHNICITY
Black
State
8 ( 0.8)
7 ( 0.7)
32 ( 1.5)
33 ( 1.3)
26 ( 1.0)
28 ( 1.5)
222 ( 4.2)
220 ( 3.3)
222 ( 1.7)
223 ( 1.8)
224 ( 1.8)
230 ( 1.9)
Nation
7 ( 1.5)
7 ( 1.1)
26 ( 2.5)
26 ( 1.7)
33 ( 2.7)
33 ( 2.3)
*** (**.*)
227 ( 4.3)
242 ( 4.2)
239 ( 2.5)
238 (3.5)
241 ( 2.2)
Hispanic
State
7 ( 1.6)
11 ( 2.2)
34 ( 3.6)
29 ( 2.3)
28 ( 2.4)
29 ( 2.3)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
209 ( 3.6)
214 (3.4)
213 ( 3.0)
216 ( 3.4)
Nation
12 ( 1.8)
11 ( 1.4)
27 ( 3.0)
27 ( 1.8)
30 ( 2.6)
30 ( 1.5)
232 ( 5.1)
244 ( 3.7)
248 ( 2.1)
250 ( 3.4)
247 ( 1.7)
TYPE OF
COMMUNITY
Extreme rural
State
9 ( 1.6)
7 ( 1.8)
36 ( 5.1)
29 ( 2.9)
25 ( 1.1)
27 ( 2.1)
209 ( 4.4)
216 ( 3.5)
*** (**.*)
220 ( 4.9)
Nation
8 ( 2.3)!
9 ( 1.7)!
36 ( 4.6)1
26 ( 4.2)1
31 ( 2.9)1
31 ( 2.6)1
262 ( 3.4)!
277 ( 4.5)1
254 ( 6.2)1
269 ( 4.6)1
Other
State
7 ( 0.8)
9 ( 1.2)
32 ( 1.5)
32 ( 1.6)
27 ( 1.3)
27 ( 2.0)
221 ( 4.4)
218 ( 3.4)
222 ( 1.7)
219 ( 1.9)
223 ( 1.8)
222 ( 2.0)
Nation
9 ( 1.0)
8 ( 0.6)
30 ( 1.8)
28 ( 0.9)
32 ( 1.3)
35 ( 0.8)
249 ( 3.7)
256 ( 2.6)
264 ( 2.2)
270 ( 1.5)
264 ( 2.3)
269 ( 1.6)
130
137
(continued on next page)
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Virgin Islands
NE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Taal State Assessment
MU"
TABLE A17B
Students' Reports on the Amount of Time
(continued)
Spent on Mathematics Homework Each Day
None
15 Minutes
30 Minutes
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
8 ( 0.7)
8 ( 0.8)
33 ( 1.5)
32 ( 1.1)
26 ( 1.1)
29 ( 1.3)
218 ( 3.9)
221 ( 2.8)
219 ( 1.7)
222 ( 1.7)
222 ( 1.7)
227 ( 1.6)
Nation
9 ( 0.8)
8 ( 0.4)
31 ( 2.0)
28 ( 0.8)
32 ( 1.2)
35 ( 0.7)>
251 ( 2.9)
253 ( 2.4)
264 ( 1.7)
268 ( 1.4)
263 ( 1.9)
268 ( 1.3)
PARENTS'
EDUCATION
College grad.
State
9 ( 1.9)
7 ( 1.3)
30 ( 2.6)
30 ( 2.8)
26 ( 2.9)
28 ( 2.6)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
222 ( 3.5)
221 ( 3.2)
222 ( 3.1)
230 ( 3.1)
Nation
7 ( 0.9)
6 ( 0.5)
31 ( 3.4)
28 ( 1.2)
31 ( 2.0)
35 ( 1.0)
265 ( 3.5)
264 ( 3.6)
275 ( 1.8)
279 ( 2.1)
276 ( 2.6)
281 ( 2.0)
Some college
State
5 ( 1.6)
10 ( 2.0)
31 ( 5.5)
30 ( 3.8)
20 ( 2.6)
31 ( 4.4)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
***
Nation
9 ( 1.2)
7 ( 0.9)
30 ( 2.7)
27 ( 1.5)
36 ( 2.1)
36 ( 1.9)
266 ( 4.4)
267 ( 3.2)
274 ( 1.7)
265 ( 2.8)
268 ( 1.7)
HS graduate
State
7 ( 1.0)
8 ( 1.2)
32 ( 3.1)
34 ( 2.4)
27 ( 2.6)
29 ( 2.0)
(**.*)
218 ( 2.9)
219 ( 2.9)
226 ( 2.6)
229 ( 2.8)
Nation
10 ( 1.7)
9 ( 0.9)
33 ( 2.2)
26 ( 1.3)
31 ( 1.9)
38 ( 1.6)
245 ( 4.2)
248 ( 5.0)
260 ( 3.0)
258 ( 2.5)
254 ( 2.4)
258 ( 1.9)
HS non-grad.
State
6 ( 1.7)
9 ( 2.0)
34 ( 4.2)
30 ( 2.8)
25 ( 3.8)
31 ( 3.6)
(t..*)
215 ( 4.2)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
221 ( 3.3)
Nation
17 ( 3.0)
13 ( 1.7)
26 ( 3.3)
28 ( 2.3)
34 ( 4.4)
29 ( 1.9)
234 ( 4.9)
246 ( 4.1)
250 ( 3.4)
245 ( 3.2)
252 ( 2.5)
Don't know
State
10 ( 1.6)
9 ( 1.5)
35 ( 2.0)
33 ( 2.5)
28 ( 1.8)
27 ( 2.2)
(**.)
217 ( 2.9)
222 ( 2.8)
218 ( 4.0)
221 ( 2.9)
Nation
13 ( 2.0)
11 ( 1.6)
38 ( 3.0)
29 ( 2.0)
27 ( 2.7)
32 ( 2.3)
243 ( 5.1)
246 ( 5.2)
255 ( 2.8)
242 ( 5.4)
255 ( 3.0)
GENDER
Male
State
11 ( 1.1)
11 ( 1.1)
34 ( 2.1)
36 ( 1.9)
26 ( 1.7)
28 ( 1.8)
221 ( 4.3)
221 ( 3.2)
223 ( 2.0)
221 ( 2.1)
220 ( 2.3)
226 ( 2.4)
Nation
11 ( 1.1)
10 ( 0.6)
34 ( 2.4)
30 ( 0.9)
29 ( 1.3)
35 ( 1.0)>
254 ( 3.4)
251 ( 2.7)
265 ( 2.6)
270 ( 1.6)
265 ( 2.5)
270 ( 1.6)
Female
State
4 ( 0.9)
5 ( 0.8)
31 ( 1.9)
28 ( 1.7)
27 ( 1.4)
29 ( 2.1)
216 ( 2.0)
222 ( 2.3)
224 ( 2.4)
228 ( 2.1)
Nation
7 ( 0.9)
6 ( 0.5)
28 ( 2.0)
25 ( 1.3)
35 ( 1.7)
35 ( 1.0)
246 ( 4.9)
257 ( 3.7)
264 ( 1.9)
267 ( 2.0)
261 ( 2.1)
267 ( 1.6)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said
with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of
the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for
details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent
confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the
95 percent confidence level. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of
this estimated statistic. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
138
131
Trugin Islands
ME NATION'S
REPORT ri'71-Ep
CARD
1
1982
Trial State Aseassment
TABLE A17B
Students' Reports on the Amount of Time
I
(continued)
Spent on Mathematics Homework Each Day
45 Minutes
An Hour or More
1990 Grade 8
1
1992 Grade 8
1990 Grade 8
I
1992 Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
16 ( 1.1)
14 ( 1.1)
18 ( 0.9)
18 ( 1.0)
217 ( 2.3)
221 ( 2.8)
216 ( 2.2)
216 ( 1.8)
Nation
16 ( 1.0)
16 ( 0.6)
12 ( 1.1)
13 ( 0.7)
266 ( 2.1)
269 ( 1.7)
258 ( 3.0)
265 ( 2.0)
RACE/
ETHNICITY
Black
State
15 ( 1.2)
14 ( 1.3)
19 ( 0.9)
18 ( 1.2)
221 ( 2.8)
224 ( 3.4)
217 ( 2.3)
220 ( 2.1)
Nation
18 ( 2.3)
19 ( 1.5)
16 ( 1.9)
15 ( 1.5)
241 ( 4.2)
236 ( 2.5)
233 ( 4.5)
231 ( 3.0)
Hispanic
State
16 ( 1.7)
15 ( 1.7)
16 ( 2.5)
17 ( 2.2)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
17 ( 2.1)
17 ( 1.4)
14 ( 1.7)
16 ( 1.3)
238 ( 5.2)
246 ( 4.2)
*** (**.*)
246 ( 2.8)
TYPE OF
COMMUNITY
Extreme rural
State
14 ( 2.0)
14 ( 2.5)
16 ( 3.6)
23 ( 1.8)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
18 ( 3.8)1
17 ( 1.5)1
7 ( 2.7)1
16 ( 4.1)1
265 ( 6.3)1
*** (**.*)
260 ( 5.1)1
Other
State
16 ( 1.2)
14 ( 1.6)
18 ( 0.7)
18 ( 1.4)
219 ( 2.5)
217 ( 3.4)
219 ( 2.6)
214 ( 2.5)
Nation
15 ( 1.1)
16 ( 0.7)
13 ( 1.1)
13 ( 0.5)
268 ( 2.2)
.
271 ( 2.0)
258 ( 3.5)
268 ( 2.4)
(continued on next page)
132
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
_139
Irugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT iiirp
CARD
TABLE A17B
Students' Reports on the Amount of Time
(continued)
Spent on Mathematics Homework Each Day
1992
Tole' Stubs
45 Minutes
An Hour or More
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
Assessment
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
16 ( 1.1)
14 ( 1.1)
18 ( 0.9)
18 ( 1.0)
217 ( 2.3)
221 ( 2.8)
216 ( 2.2)
216 ( 1.8)
Nation
16 ( 1.0)
16 ( 0.6)
12 ( 1.1)
13 ( 0.7)
266 ( 2.1)
269 ( 1.7)
258 ( 3.0)
265 ( 2.0)
PARENTS'
EDUCATION
College grad.
State
16 ( 1.7)
13 ( 1.9)
19 ( 2.1)
22 ( 3.0)
*** (**.*)
***
*** (**.*)
219 ( 4.9)
Nation
18 ( 1.2)
18 ( 1.0)
14 ( 1.9)
14 ( 0.9)
279 ( 3.6)
281 ( 2.3)
271 ( 3.0)
277 ( 3.3)
Some college
State
20 ( 3.9)
20 ( 3.2)
23 ( 3.5)
9 ( 2.2)<
*** (**.*)
***
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
14 ( 1.8)
15 ( 1.4)
11 ( 1.5)
14 ( 1.2)
274 ( 3.7)
268 ( 3.3)
***
274 ( 3.9)
HS graduate
State
17 ( 2.5)
13 ( 1.7)
16 ( 2.4)
17 ( 1.9)
218 ( 4.4)
***
***
216 ( 4.0)
Nation
16 ( 1.4)
15 ( 1.0)
11 ( 1.5)
.
12 ( 1.3)
256 ( 3.8)
256 ( 3.2)
245 ( 4.3)
251 ( 2.8)
HS non-grad.
State
16 ( 2.2)
14 ( 2.4)
19 ( 2.6)
16 ( 2.9)
*** (**.*)
***
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
12 ( 2.5)
16 ( 2.1)
10 ( 2.2)
14 ( 1.5)
*** (**.*)
255 ( 3.9)
***
246 ( 4.7)
Don't know
State
11 ( 1.9)
12 ( 1.9)
15 ( 2.2)
19 ( 2.2)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
***
213 ( 2.8)
Nation
13 ( 2.2)
15 ( 1.9)
10 ( 2.1)
12 ( 1.8)
*** (**.*)
251 ( 4.6)
*** (**.*)
245 ( 4.7)
eENDER
Male
State
13 ( 1.2)
11 ( 1.1)
16 ( 1.2)
14 ( 1.4)
222 ( 2.6)
220 ( 4.2)
219 ( 3.1)
217 ( 3.2)
Nation
15 ( 1.2)
14 ( 0.7)
11 ( 1.4)
11 ( 0.9)
264 ( 3.0)
267 ( 2.3)
258 ( 3.9)
262 ( 3.0)
Female
State
18 ( 1.6)
16 ( 1.7)
20 ( 1.5)
22 ( 1.3)
214 ( 2.9)
222 ( 3.4)
213 ( 3.1)
216 ( 2.5)
Nation
17 ( 1.0)
19 ( 0.9)
13 ( 1.3)
15 ( 0.8)
268 ( 2.6)
270 ( 2.0)
258 ( 3.2)
267 ( 2.1)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the es imated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value
for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
l Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated statistic. "* Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62
students).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
133
140
Virgin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
TM Stift Assessment
1
TABLE A18A
Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given to
Numbers and Operations
1992 Grade 8
Heavy
Emphasis
Little or No
Emphasis
Heavy
Emphasis
Little or No
Emmphasis
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
TOTAL
TOTAL
State
71 ( 1.1)
5 ( 0.5)
State
71 ( 1.1)
5 ( 0.5)
228 ( 1.0)
265 ( 4.4)
228 ( 1.0)
265 ( 4.4)
Nation
76 ( 1.9)
4 ( 0.8)
Nation
76 ( 1.9)
4 ( 0.8)
269 ( 1.2)
283 ( 6.9)!
269 ( 1.2)
283 ( 6.9)1
RACE/
PARENTS'
ETHNICITY
EDUCATION
Black
College grad.
State
70 ( 1.2)
6 ( 0.6)
State
70 ( 2.4)
6 ( 1.1)
230 ( 1.1)
266 ( 4.8)
231 ( 3.3)
***
Nation
74 ( 4.7)
6 ( 3.0)
Nation
73 ( 2.2)
4 ( 0.9)
244 ( 1.9)
*** (**.*)
281 ( 1.8)
299 ( 6.2)!
Hispanic
Some college
State
75 ( 2.5)
2 ( 1.0)
State
73 ( 2.7)
9 ( 1.5)
221 ( 2.4)
*** (**.*)
238 ( 2.9)
Nation
80 ( 2.6)
2 ( 0.7)
Nation
76 ( 2.3)
3 ( 0.9)
248 ( 1.9)
*** (**.*)
272 ( 1.6)
TYPE OF
HS graduate
COMMUNITY
State
70 ( 2.3)
5 ( 0.8)
Extreme rural
228 ( 1.5)
*** (**.*)
State
91 ( 2.0)
9 ( 2.0)
Nation
76 ( 2.7)
3 ( 1.4)
222 ( 1.5)
*** (**.*)
261 ( 1.6)
*** (**.*)
Nation
90 ( 6.2)1
2 ( 2.3)!
271 ( 4.7)1
*** (**.*)
HS non-grad.
State
71 ( 3.7)
4 ( 1.4)
Other
225 ( 2.5)
***
State
63 ( 1.8)
0 ( 0.2)
Nation
81 ( 3.2)
2 ( 0.9)
222 ( 2.2)
*** (**.*)
253 ( 2.2)
*** (**.*)
Nation
73 ( 2.2)
4 ( 0.9)
270 ( 1.4)
277 ( 6.7)1
Don't Know
State
72 ( 2.4)
4 ( 0.9)
223 ( 2.2)
***
Nation
81 ( 2.4)
3 ( 1.2)
254 ( 2.1)
***
GENDER
Male
State
73 ( 1.8)
3 ( 0.6)
227 ( 1.5)
***
Nation
74 ( 1.9)
4 ( 0.8)
269 ( 1.4)
281 ( 6.4)1
Female
State
69 ( 1.9)
8 ( 0.9)
230 ( 1.7)
*** (**.*)
Nation
77 ( 2.2)
3 ( 0.9)
270 ( 1.5)
287 ( 9.0)1
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details).
The percentages may not total 100 percent because the "Moderate Emphasis" category is not included.
Comparisons between 1990 and 1992 are not appropriate for this content area because of changes in the form of the questions that the
students' mathematics teachers were asked. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination
of the variability of this estimated statistic. **I' Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
134
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
141
Vugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Taal State Asseumeat
TABLE A18B
Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given to
Measurement
Heavy Emphasis
Little or No Emphasis
1990 Grade 8
I
1992 Grade 8
1990 Grade 8
I
1992 Grade 8
MTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
35 ( 0.7)
9 ( 0.6)<
19 ( 0.8)
19 ( 0.7)
218 ( 2.9)
210 ( 4.8)
215 ( 3.7)
216 ( 3.2)
Nation
17 ( 3.0)
16 ( 2.0)
33 ( 4.0)
15 ( 1.6)<
250 ( 4.8)
255 ( 3.0)
272 ( 3.9)
281 ( 3.4)
RACE/
ETHNICITY
Black
State
36 ( 1.1)
10 ( 1.0)<
19 ( 0.9)
21 ( 1.0)
219 ( 3.5)
213 ( 5.4)
219 ( 4.7)
217 ( 3.8)
Nation
25 ( 7.4)
19 ( 4.1)
23 ( 5.7)
13 ( 2.4)
231 ( 3.5)!
225 ( 3.0)!
239 ( 6.6)1
229 ( 6.2)
Hispanic
State
33 ( 2.4)
8 ( 1.3)<
20 ( 2.1)
15 ( 2.1)
213 ( 4.6)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
23 ( 4.1)
22 ( 2.8)
34 ( 5.8)
10 ( 2.1)<
*** (**.*)
237 ( 4.6)
250 ( 4.9)1
251 ( 6.7)1
7YPE OF
COMMUNI7Y
Extreme rural
State
49 ( 1.1)
19 ( 2.1)<
35 ( 1.2)
8 ( 1.8)<
205 ( 3.7)
*** (**.*)
211 ( 5.4)
*** (**.*)
Nation
6 ( 4.9)1
15 ( 6.5)1
32 (11.7)1
11 ( 6.8)1
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
259 ( 7.8)1
*** (**.*)
Other
State
33 ( 0.8)
3 ( 0.7)<
16 ( 0.9)
10 ( 1.0)<
222 ( 3.7)
*** (**.*)
217 ( 4.2)
*** (**.*)
Nation
16 ( 3.9)
17 ( 2.6)
34 ( 5.3)
14 ( 1.9)<
251 ( 6.0)1
255 ( 3.4)
271 ( 4.1)
283 ( 3.2)
(continued on next page)
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
135
142
Vilgin Islands
NE RATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mid Mato Assessment
TABLE A18B
Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given to
(continued)
Measurement
Heavy Emphasis
Little or No Emphasis
1990
1992
1990
1992
Grade 8
Grade 8
Grade 8
Grade 8
7OTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
35 ( 0.7)
9 ( 0.6)<
19 ( 0.8)
19 ( 0.7)
218 ( 2.9)
210 ( 4.8)
215 ( 3.7)
216 ( 3.2)
Nation
17 ( 3.0)
16 ( 2.0)
33 ( 4.0)
15 ( 1.6)<
250 ( 4.8)
255 ( 3.0)
272 ( 3.9)
281 ( 3.4)
PARENTS'
EDUCATION
College grad.
State
38 ( 4.1)
8 ( 1.6)<
15 ( 2.6)
26 ( 1.7)>
217 ( 3.8)
*** (**.*)
***
222 ( 4.6)
Nation
16 ( 3.3)
12 ( 1.8)
37 ( 3.8)
19 ( 1.9)<
264 ( 5.9)1
269 ( 4.0)
285 ( 3.9)
293 ( 3.8)
Some college
State
30 ( 3.8)
7 ( 1.8)<
20 ( 3.7)
18 ( 3.0)
***
***
*** (**.*)
***
Nation
12 ( 2.7)
15 ( 2.2)
39 ( 5.5)
15 ( 2.3k
*** (**.*)
257 ( 5.5)
278 ( 4.4)
277 ( 5.1)
HS graduate
State
39 ( 2.9)
11 ( 1.6k
18 ( 2.2)
18 ( 1.7)
214 ( 4.3)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
217 ( 4.9)
Nation
17 ( 3.9)
22 ( 3.1)
27 ( 5.0)
12 ( 1.7)
251 ( 5.7)!
246 ( 4.7)
250 ( 4.5)1
268 ( 4.3)
HS non-grad.
State
37 ( 2.9)
11 ( 1.6k
21 ( 3.3)
15 ( 2.3)
***
***
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
22 ( 5.3)
18 ( 2.9)
25 ( 5.3)
8 ( 2.5)
*** (**.*)
244 ( 3.5)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Don't know
State
31 ( 2.8)
10 ( 1.3)<
23 ( 1.5)
17 ( 1.8)
222 ( 4.8)
*** (**.*)
212 ( 7.1)
*** (**.*)
Nation
24 ( 4.4)
19 ( 2.9)
26 ( 4.1)
14 ( 2.5)
*** (**.*)
250 ( 3.8)
***
264 ( 4.9)
GENDER
Male
State
33 ( 1.5)
10 ( 0.9)<
19 ( 1.5)
21 ( 1.4)
225 ( 3.8)
212 ( 6.3)
220 ( 5.7)
217 ( 4.8)
Nation
17 ( 3.3)
15 ( 1.9)
32 ( 3.9)
16 ( 1.8)<
256 ( 5.9)
259 ( 3.0)
277 ( 4.4)
281 ( 3.6)
Female
State
38 ( 1.7)
9 ( 1.0k
20 ( 1.5)
17 ( 1.1)
212 ( 4.3)
***
211 ( 4.5)
214 ( 3.9)
Nation
17 ( 3.2)
17 ( 2.1)
35 ( 4.3)
15 ( 1.6k
243 ( 4.8)
251 ( 3.9)
267 ( 3.8)
280 ( 4.5)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the es imated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value
for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level. The percentages may not total 100 percent because the "Moderate Emphasis" category
is not included.
! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this
estimated statistic. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
136
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
143
Vugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARO
1992
Mal Mate Aueument
1
TABLE A18C
Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given to
Geometry
Heavy Emphasis
Little or No Emphasis
1990 Grade 8
I
1992 Grade 8
1990 Grade 8
I
1992 Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
11 ( 0.2)
2 ( 0.4)<
51 ( 1.0)
31 ( 0.9)<
218 ( 3.9)
*** (**.*)
222 ( 1.5)
218 ( 2.3)
Nation
28 ( 3.8)
18 ( 2.6)
21 ( 3.3)
11 ( 1.4)<
259 ( 3.0)
263 ( 2.3)
264 ( 5.4)
264 ( 4.4)
RACE/
ETHNICITY
Black
State
10 ( 0.5)
2 ( 0.5)<
51 ( 1.3)
31 ( 1.1)<
221 ( 4.7)
*** (**.*)
224 ( 1.6)
221 ( 2.2)
Nation
33 ( 7.9)
22 ( 4.7)
24 ( 7.3)
14 ( 3.3)
.
242 ( 6.2)!
240 ( 3.3)1
233 ( 6.0)1
226 ( 5.0)1
Hispanic
State
14 ( 1.8)
2 ( 1.0)<
51 ( 3.8)
30 ( 2.5)<
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
213 ( 3.2)
206 ( 6.6)
Nation
27 ( 6.8)
24 ( 3.9)
16 ( 5.5)
11 ( 2.0)
*** (**.*)
250 ( 3.5)
*** (**.*)
234 ( 7.0)
7YPE OF
OOMMUNRY
Extreme rural
State
10 ( 0.6)
9 ( 2.0)
77 ( 0.4)
75 ( 3.3)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
216 ( 2.0)
209 ( 3.9)
Nation
9 ( 6.1)!
7 ( 3.8)!
16 ( 7.9)1
5 ( 3.2)!
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
***
Other
State
11 ( 0.2)
0 ( 0.0)
46 ( 1.2)
4 ( 0.7)<
221 ( 4.3)
*** (**.*)
224 ( 1.9)
***
Nation
28 ( 4.6)
18 ( 3.2)
24 ( 4.3)
12 ( 1.7)
258 ( 4.0)
264 ( 2.2)
264 ( 5.8)
266 ( 5.2)
I
(continued on next page)
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
137
144
Vugin Islands
TABLE A18C
Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given to
(continued)
Geometry
Heavy Emphasis
Little or No Emphasis
1990
1992
1990
1992
Grade 8
Grade 8
Grade 8
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
11 ( 0.2)
2 ( 0.4)<
51 ( 1.0)
31 ( 0.9)<
218 ( 3.9)
*** (**.*)
222 ( 1.5)
218 ( 2.3)
Nation
28 ( 3.8)
18 ( 2.6)
21 ( 3.3)
11 ( 1.4)<
259 ( 3.0)
263 ( 2.3)
264 ( 5.4)
264 ( 4.4)
PARENTS'
EDUCATION
Co Hoge grad.
State
12 ( 1.3)
3 ( 0.8)<
46 ( 3.5)
30 ( 2.2)<
*** (**.*)
***
222 ( 3.5)
218 ( 4.7)
Nation
26 ( 3.4)
17 ( 2.8)
21 ( 2.9)
13 ( 1.6)
269 ( 2.9)
271 ( 2.8)
279 ( 6.5)
279 ( 4.6)
Some college
State
9 ( 3.4)
2 ( 1.1)
50 ( 4.6)
32 ( 3.7)
*** (**.*)
***
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
27 ( 5.0)
20 ( 4.0)
23 ( 4.1)
11 ( 1.7)
259 ( 4.4)1
265 ( 3.0)!
271 ( 5.2)
259 ( 5.4)
HS graduate
State
14 ( 1.6)
1 ( 0.4)<
48 ( 2.8)
30 ( 1.6)<
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
223 ( 3.6)
219 ( 4.4)
Nation
27 ( 4.5)
17 ( 2.7)
24 ( 5.1)
9 ( 1.7)
257 ( 3.7)
255 ( 3.3)
247 ( 4.2)1
252 ( 5.6)
HS non-grad.
State
11 ( 1.9)
2 ( 1.0k
53 ( 3.0)
33 ( 3.6)<
***
***
218 ( 3.9)
*** (**.*)
Nation
32 ( 6.3)
18 ( 2.4)
20 ( 6.7)
10 ( 2.7)
*** (**.*)
252 ( 4.7)
***
*** (**.*)
Don't know
State
8 ( 1.4)
2 ( 0.6)<
57 ( 3.4)
31 ( 3.0)<
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
220 ( 2.1)
213 ( 4.3)
Nation
35 ( 6.7)
16 ( 3.2)
13 ( 2.1)
11 ( 2.4)
245 ( 6.1)!
253 ( 3.9)
***
*** (**.*)
GENDER
Male
State
10 ( 0.9)
1 ( 0.5)<
51 ( 1.6)
34 ( 1.9)<
***
***
224 ( 2.6)
218 ( 3.5)
Nation
29 ( 4.1)
17 ( 2.5)
20 ( 3.3)
11 ( 1.4)
261 ( 4.0)
262 ( 2.8)
266 ( 6.7)
263 ( 4.9)
Female
State
12 ( 0.9)
3 ( 0.8)<
51 ( 1.6)
27 ( 1.7)<
216 ( 5.8)
*** (**.*)
219 ( 1.6)
216 ( 2.9)
Nation
27 ( 3.9)
18 ( 2.8)
23 ( 3.5)
11 ( 1.7)<
257 ( 2.9)
263 ( 2.7)
262 ( 4.7)
266 ( 4.7)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level.
If the notation < appears,
it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower
than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow
accurate determination of the variability of this estimated statistic.
Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer
than 62 students).
138
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
145
Vugin Islands
ME NATION'S
REPORT
CARO
1992
Taal State Assessment
riup
TABLE A18D
Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given to
Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability
1992 Grade 8
Heavy
Emphasis
Little or No
Emphasis
Heavy
Emphasis
Utile or No
Emphasis
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
TOTAL
MiLL
State
13 ( 0.8)
40 ( 1.1)
State
13 ( 0.8)
40 ( 1.1)
217 ( 5.3)
210 ( 2.9)
217 ( 5.3)
210 ( 2.9)
Nation
11 ( 1.7)
30 ( 2.0)
Nation
11 ( 1.7)
30 ( 2.0)
273 ( 4.8)
268 ( 2.6)
273 ( 4.8)
268 ( 2.6)
RACE/
PARENTS'
ETHNICITY
EDUCATION
Black
College grad.
State
13 ( 0.7)
40 ( 1.2)
State
12 ( 1.5)
41 ( 2.9)
217 ( 5.3)
211 ( 2.9)
*** (**.*)
215 ( 5.3)
Nation
11 ( 2.1)
24 ( 3.2)
Nation
12 ( 2.5)
30 ( 2.2)
246 ( 8.2)
232 ( 4.4)
287 ( 6.4)1
284 ( 3.4)
Hispanic
Some college
State
16 ( 1.9)
39 ( 3.0)
State
12 ( 1.9)
29 ( 3.4)
*** (**.*)
209 ( 4.4)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
13 ( 1.8)
31 ( 3.8)
Nation
11 ( 1.6)
31 ( 2.7)
246 ( 4.3)
239 ( 4.1)
271 ( 5.0)
272 ( 3.7)
TYPE OF
HS graduate
WMMUNITY
State
12 ( 1.1)
41 ( 2.1)
Extreme rural
*** (**.*)
205 ( 4.2)
State
9 ( 2.0)
31 ( 3.3)
Nation
8 ( 1.5)
28 ( 2.7)
194 ( 6.1)
260 ( 4.7)
252 ( 4.2)
Nation
5 ( 3.3)!
45 (12.0)!
261 ( 4.9)!
HS non-grad.
State
14 ( 2.6)
40 ( 4.2)
Other
*** (**.*)
203 ( 4.9)
State
23 ( 1.4)
38 ( 1.7)
Nation
14 ( 2.6)
33 ( 3.4)
202 ( 6.1)
213 ( 3.7)
252 ( 4.9)!
243 ( 4.3)
Nation
9 ( 1.7)
29 ( 2.4)
269 ( 3.8)
270 ( 3.3)
Don't Know
State
16 ( 1.7)
41 ( 2.8)
*** (**.*)
208 ( 3.9)
Nation
11 ( 2.5)
28 ( 2.6)
259 ( 7.2)1
247 ( 4.1)
GENDER
Male
State
12 ( 1.2)
42 ( 1.8)
211 ( 7.0)
212 ( 3.3)
Nation
10 ( 1.6)
30 ( 2.0)
275 ( 4.5)
267 ( 2.8)
Female
State
15 ( 1.4)
36 ( 1.8)
222 ( 5.4)
208 ( 3.8)
Nation
11 ( 1.9)
29 ( 2.3)
272 ( 5.8)
269 ( 3.2)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within I 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details).
The percentages may not total 100 percent because the "Moderate Emphasis" category is not included.
Comparisons between 1990 and 1992 are not appropriate for this content area because of changes in the form of the questions that the
students' mathematics teachers were asked. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination
of the variability of this estimated statistic.
*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
/46
139
Vugin Islands
NE NATION'S
REPORT ramp
CARD
1992
Mal State Amassment
1
TABLE A18E
Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given to
Algebra and Functions
Heavy Emphasis
Little or No Emphasis
1990 Grade 8
I
1992 Grade 8
1990 Grade 8
I
1992 Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
47 ( 0.8)
25 ( 0.8)<
19 ( 0.7)
12 ( 0.5)<
229 ( 2.2)
230 ( 2.5)
211 ( 3.6)
230 ( 2.6)>
Nation
46 ( 3.6)
46 ( 2.1)
20 ( 3.0)
13 ( 1.5)
275 ( 2.6)
282 ( 2.1)
244 ( 3.2)
241 ( 2.8)
RACE/
ETHNICAN
Black
State
48 ( 1.3)
25 ( 1.1)<
19 ( 1.1)
13 ( 0.7)<
229 ( 2.5)
232 ( 2.6)
214 ( 3.5)
232 ( 3.3)>
Nation
39 ( 7.1)
40 ( 3.8)
27 ( 6.9)
18 ( 4.1)
255 ( 5.4)
251 ( 2.8)
227 ( 5.1)!
22 ( 4.4)1
Hispanic
State
43 ( 3.0)
23 ( 2.3)<
19 ( 2.6)
9 ( 1.5)<
225 ( 3.4)
222 ( 5.5)
*** (**.*)
Nation
46 ( 5.9)
40 ( 3.4)
18 ( 4.2)
17 ( 3.0)
256 ( 4.6)!
257 ( 2.2)
*** (**.*)
225 ( 3.2)
7YPE OF
COMMUNTY
Extreme rural
State
6 ( 0.2)
64 ( 2.4)>
46 ( 1.1)
0 ( 0.0)
224 ( 3.6)
210 ( 5.5)
*** (**.*)
Nation
33 ( 8.1)!
39 ( 8.3)1
42 (16.0)!
18 ( 4.0)1
*** (**.*)
276 ( 8.7)!
240 ( 5.2)!
244 ( 7.2)1
Other
State
56 ( 1.0)
18 ( 1.1)<
13 ( 0.8)
3 ( 0.6)<
228 ( 2.3)
224 ( 3.4)
212 ( 5.0)
***
Nation
47 ( 4.3)
48 ( 2.3)
17 ( 3.3)
12 ( 1.6)
.
276 ( 3.2)
281 ( 2.4)
245 ( 4.8)1
241 ( 3.4)
(continued on next page)
140
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
147
!Pugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Kelp
Mal State Ausssment
TABLE A18E
Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given to
(continued)
Algebra and Functions
Heavy Emphasis
Little or No Emphasis
1990 Grade 8
I
1992 Grade 8
1990 Grade 8
I
1992 Grade 8
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
TOTAL
State
47 ( 0.8)
25 ( 0.8)<
19 ( 0.7)
12 ( 0.5)<
229 ( 2.2)
230 ( 2.5)
211 ( 3.6)
230 ( 2.6)>
Nation
46 ( 3.6)
46 ( 2.1)
20 ( 3.0)
13 ( 1.5)
275 ( 2.6)
282 ( 2.1)
244 ( 3.2)
241 ( 2.8)
PARENW
EDUCATION
.
College grad.
State
49 ( 4.2)
23 ( 2.2)<
16 ( 2.1)
13 ( 1.9)
232 ( 3.3)
246 ( 5.6)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
50 ( 3.9)
55 ( 2.2)
18 ( 2.4)
9 ( 1.1)<
288 ( 2.9)
293 ( 2.4)
248 ( 3.9)
250 ( 4.2)
Some college
State
47 ( 3.4)
29 ( 2.9)<
19 ( 4.8)
15 ( 2.2)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
***
Nation
48 ( 4.8)
49 ( 3.5)
17 ( 3.1)
12 ( 1.8)
279 ( 2.6)
280 ( 3.1)
*** (**.*)
244 ( 4.8)
HS graduate
State
49 ( 2.9)
26 ( 2.0)<
18 ( 2.4)
13 ( 1.2)
231 ( 2.8)
227 ( 4.2)
*** (**.*)
***
Nation
44 ( 4.8)
38 ( 2.5)
23 ( 3.9)
16 ( 2.1)
266 ( 3.0)
269 ( 2.4)
240 ( 4.1)
237 ( 3.7)
HS non-grad.
State
43 ( 3.2)
24 ( 3.3)<
19 ( 2.7)
9 ( 2.4)
221 ( 4.4)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
***
Nation
28 ( 5.2)
35 ( 4.1)
29 ( 6.9)
18 ( 2.8)
259 ( 3.2)
*** (**.*)
230 ( 3.7)
Don't know
State
44 ( 3.1)
25 ( 2.4)<
23 ( 2.1)
10 ( 1.8)<
223 ( 4.2)
219 ( 3.3)
*** (**.*)
***
Nation
42 ( 6.0)
36 ( 3.1)
19 ( 4.9)
19 ( 2.7)
249 ( 5.1)
264 ( 3.2)
*** (**.*)
236 ( 3.8)
GENDER
Male
State
45 ( 1.3)
24 ( 1.4)<
20 ( 1.0)
10 ( 1.0)<
232 ( 2.4)
225 ( 3.5)
216 ( 5.6)
232 ( 5.1)
Nation
44 ( 4.1)
44 ( 2.0)
22 ( 3.6)
15 ( 1.8)
277 ( 3.1)
281 ( 2.3)
243 ( 3.4)
240 ( 3.2)
Female
State
48 ( 1.6)
26 ( 1.7)<
18 ( 1.1)
14 ( 1.5)
226 ( 3.6)
235 ( 2.7)
207 ( 3.6)
228 ( 3.8)>
Nation
48 ( 3.6)
48 ( 2.5)
18 ( 2.9)
11 ( 1.3)
274 ( 2.6)
282 ( 2.3)
245 ( 4.3)
241 ( 3.3)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing Wo estimates, one must use the standard error oithe difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value
for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level. The percentages may not total 100 percent because the 'Moderate Emphasis" category
is not included.
! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this
estimated statistic. m Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
143
141
Vugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mal State Auessment
TABLE A19
Teachers' Reports on the Availability of
Resources
All the Resources Needed
Most of the Resources
Needed
,
Some or None of the
Resources Needed
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
34 ( 0.6)
18 ( 0.5)<
66 ( 0.6)
82 ( 0.5)>
224 ( 1.5)
241 ( 2.4)>
217 ( 1.3)
216 ( 1.1)
Nation
13 ( 2.4)
13 ( 2.3)
56 ( 4.0)
53 ( 2.5)
31 ( 4.2)
33 ( 1.9)
264 ( 3.7)
272 ( 3.4)
265 ( 2.0)
269 ( 1.1)
260 ( 3.1)
261 ( 1.5)
RACE/
ETHNICITY
Black
State
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
34 ( 0.9)
21 ( 0.6)<
66 ( 0.9)
79 ( 0.6)>
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
226 ( 2.0)
244 ( 2.1)>
220 ( 1.4)
218 ( 1.3)
Nation
15 ( 4.2)
9 ( 2.2)
52 ( 6.6)
48 ( 3.0)
33 ( 7.2)
43 ( 3.3)
241 ( 5.8)!
240 ( 5.5)1
244 ( 2.7)
238 ( 2.5)
234 ( 6.7)
234 ( 2.0)
Hispanic
State
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
31 ( 2.5)
10 ( 1.0)<
69 ( 2.5)
90 ( 1.0)>
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
215 ( 3.4)
*** (**.*)
207 ( 2.4)
212 ( 2.0)
Nation
23 ( 7.6)
12 ( 1.8)
44 ( 4.9)
45 ( 2.7)
34 ( 7.7)
43 ( 2.7)
243 ( 6.5)!
246 ( 4.3)
251 ( 3.9)
247 ( 2.6)
242 ( 4.8)1
243 ( 2.2)
TYPE OF
COMMUNflY
Extreme rural
State
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
31 ( 0.9)
0 ( 0.0)
69 ( 0.9)
100 ( 0.0)>
207 ( 2.2)
*** (**.*)
210 ( 2.2)
215 ( 2.4)
Nation
2 ( 2.6)1
19 (11.9)1
54 (10.4)1
45 (12.4)1
43 (10.3)!
36 ( 8.3)1
262 ( 3.7)1
260 ( 9.9)1
271 ( 5.7)!
256 ( 7.4)1
265 ( 6.9)!
Other
State
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
35 ( 0.8)
0 ( 0.0)
65 ( 0.8)
100 ( 0.0)>
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
228 ( 1.9)
*** (**.*)
219 ( 1.4)
215 ( 1.4)
Nation
11 ( 2.9)
11 ( 2.0)
58 ( 5.4)
57 ( 3.0)
31 ( 5.6)
32 ( 2.6)
263 ( 3.7)1
276 ( 3.0)
264 ( 2.1)
269 ( 1.3)
262 ( 4.6)
263 ( 2.0)
142
(continued on next page)
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
149
rugin Islands
ME NATION'S
REPORT
CARO
1992
TOM State Assessment
TABLE A19
Teachers' Reports on the Avsb lliJly off'
(continued)
Resources
All the Resources Needed
Most of the Resources
Needed
Some or Mono of the
Resources Meeded
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
70TAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students ond
Average Math Proficiency
State
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
34 ( 0.6)
18 ( 0.5)<
66 ( 0.6)
82 ( 0.5)>
*** (**.*)
*** (...1
224 ( 1.5)
241 ( 2.4)>
217 ( 1.3)
216 ( 1.1)
Nation
13 ( 2.4)
13 ( 2.3)
56 ( 4.0)
53 ( 2.5)
31 ( 4.2)
33 ( 1.9)
264 ( 3.7)
272 ( 3.4)
265 ( 2.0)
269 ( 1.1)
260 ( 3.1)
261 ( 1.5)
PARENTS'
EDUCA77QN
College grad.
State
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
38 ( 2.7)
21 ( 2.2)<
62 ( 2.7)
79 ( 2.2)>
226 ( 2.1)
246 ( 3.6)>
216 ( 1.8)
217 ( 2.5)
Nation
15 ( 2.9)
14 ( 2.0)
56 ( 4.9)
55 ( 2.5)
30 ( 5.1)
30 ( 2.1)
275 ( 4.9)1
285 ( 4.2)
277 ( 2.3)
282 ( 1.4)
273 ( 4.1)
273 ( 2.2)
Some college
State
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
32 ( 3.7)
27 ( 2.5)
68 ( 3.7)
73 ( 2.5)
(**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (....)
226 ( 3.2)
226 ( 2.9)
Nation
13 ( 3.3)
11 ( 2.5)
62 ( 4.3)
55 ( 3.4)
25 ( 4.1)
33 ( 2.8)
*** (**.*)
274 ( 4.4)1
270 ( 2.1)
273 ( 1.6)
266 ( 4.6)
265 ( 2.3)
HS graduate
State
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
37 ( 2.7)
20 ( 2.0)<
63 ( 2.7)
80 ( 2.0)>
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
224 ( 2.6)
239 ( 3.6)>
218 ( 2.2)
215 ( 2.1)
Nation
10 ( 2.5)
13 ( 2.6)
54 ( 4.9)
52 ( 3.0)
35 ( 4.9)
35 ( 2.3)
250 ( 4.6)1
262 ( 3.5)1
257 ( 2.2)
258 ( 1.8)
256 ( 3.4)
253 ( 2.1)
HS non-grad.
State
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
29 ( 2.1)
16 ( 2.3)<
71 ( 2.1)
84 ( 2.3)>
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (04%1
211 ( 3.3)
214 ( 2.5)
Nation
8 ( 2.6)
15 ( 5.9)
54 ( 5.7)
48 ( 5.3)
38 ( 6.3)
37 ( 3.8)
*** (**.*)
257 ( 3.8)1
245 ( 2.7)
250 ( 3.0)
238 ( 4.3)1
245 ( 2.4)
Don't know
State
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
30 ( 1.9)
11 ( 1.4)<
70 ( 1.9)
89 ( 1.4)>
219 ( 4.5)
*** (**.*)
216 ( 2.3)
214 ( 1.7)
Nation
17 ( 5.0)
11 ( 2.6)
52 ( 5.8)
48 ( 3.2)
31 ( 6.3)
41 ( 2.9)
*** (**.*)
252 ( 4.4)!
244 ( 3.6)
254 ( 2.9)
236 ( 4.4)
247 ( 2.4)
GENDER
Male
State
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
34 ( 1.4)
17 ( 1.0)<
66 ( 1.4)
83 ( 1.0)>
226 ( 2.0)
240 ( 2.7)>
219 ( 1.8)
216 ( 1.6)
Nation
13 ( 2.6)
13 ( 2.4)
57 ( 4.0)
53 ( 2.5)
30 ( 4.0)
34 ( 2.0)
264 ( 4.0)1
272 ( 4.4)
265 ( 2.7)
268 ( 1.3)
263 ( 3.6)
263 ( 1.9)
Female
State
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
34 ( 1.6)
20 ( 1.2)<
66 ( 1.6)
80 ( 1.2)>
222 ( 2.8)
242 ( 3.2)>
215 ( 1.5)
216 ( 1.2)
Nation
13 ( 2.4)
13 ( 2.3)
55 ( 4.4)
54 ( 2.7)
32 ( 4.7)
33 ( 2.1)
265 ( 4.0)
273 ( 3.3)
265 ( 1.9)
271 ( 1.4)
256 ( 3.2)
260 ( 1.7)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said
with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of
the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for
details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent
confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the
95 percent confidence level. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of
this estimated statistic.
Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
150
143
Vugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mal State Asenument
1
TABLE A20A
Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of
Small-Group Work
At Least Weekly
Less Than Once a Week
Never or Hardly Ever
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
TOTAL
State
53 ( 0.8)
29 ( 1.0)<
36 ( 0.7)
37 ( 1.0)
12 ( 0.6)
34 ( 0.8)>
213 ( 1.5)
215 ( 2.1)
233 ( 1.4)
222 ( 1.5)<
220 ( 2.1)
224 ( 1.8)
Nation
50 ( 4.4)
51 ( 2.6)
43 ( 4.1)
32 ( 2.6)
8 ( 2.0)
17 ( 2.2)>
260 ( 2.2)
269 ( 1.6)>
264 ( 2.5)
266 ( 2.2)
279 ( 5.5)1
267 ( 2.9)
RACE/
ETHNICITY
Black
State
51 ( 1.3)
28 ( 1.3)<
38 ( 0.9)
37 ( 1.2)
12 ( 0.9)
35 ( 1.2)>
216 ( 1.8)
216 ( 2.2)
233 ( 1.5)
226 ( 1.8)<
222 ( 2.0)
226 ( 2.0)
Nation
47 ( 8.1)
52 ( 6.7)
45 ( 7.0)
30 ( 4.8)
9 ( 4.1)
18 ( 4.1)
240 ( 3.6)
238 ( 2.6)
238 ( 5.5)
236 ( 2.6)
*** (**.*)
237 ( 3.6)1
Hispanic
State
59 ( 3.1)
34 ( 2.7)<
29 ( 2.8)
34 ( 3.0)
12 ( 1.7)
33 ( 2.6)>
202 ( 2.2)
213 ( 3.5)>
226 ( 3.9)
209 ( 3.9)<
*** (**.*)
218 ( 3.8)
Nation
64 ( 7.2)
54 ( 3.1)
32 ( 6.9)
30 ( 2.8)
4 ( 1.4)
16 ( 3.0)>
245 ( 2.8)
246 ( 2.4)
247 ( 7.0)1
245 ( 2.3)
*** (**.*)
246 ( 5.3)
TYPE OF
COMMUNITY
Extreme rural
State
41 ( 1.1)
12 ( 2.3)<
26 ( 0.8)
16 ( 1.4)<
33 ( 1.3)
72 ( 1.5)>
205 ( 1.8)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
214 ( 3.2)
218 ( 3.3)
Nation
35 (14.6)!
38 (12.6)1
56 (17.1)!
35 (12.5)!
9 ( 9.6)1
27 (11.8)1
255 ( 5.7)!
264 (11.5)1
257 ( 8.0)1
265 ( 6.4)!
*** (**.*)
271 ( 6.8)1
Other
State
55 ( 0.9)
57 ( 2.1)
38 ( 0.8)
23 ( 2.0)<
7 ( 0.7)
20 ( 1.3)>
214 ( 1.6)
217 ( 2.3)
235 ( 1.4)
207 ( 2.7)<
225 ( 2.6)
216 ( 2.0)<
Nation
50 ( 4.4)
55 ( 2.8)
44 ( 4.5)
30 ( 2.6)<
6 ( 1.8)
16 ( 2.3)>
259 ( 2.6)
269 ( 1.6)>
264 ( 2.7)
268 ( 2.3)
278 ( 8.6)1
266 ( 3.3)
144
(continued on next page)
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
151
'Pugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARO
1992
Mal State Assessment
TABLE A20A
Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of
(continued)
Small-Group Work
At Least Weekly
Less Than Once a Week
Never or Hardly Ever
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
TOTAL
State
53 ( 0.8)
29 ( 1.0)<
36 ( 0.7)
37 ( 1.0)
12 ( 0.6)
34 ( 0.8)>
213 ( 1.5)
215 ( 2.1)
233 ( 1.4)
222 ( 1.5)<
220 ( 2.1)
224 ( 1.8)
Nation
50 ( 4.4)
51 ( 2.6)
43 ( 4.1)
32 ( 2.6)
8 ( 2.0)
17 ( 2.2)>
260 ( 2.2)
269 ( 1.6)>
264 ( 2.5)
266 ( 2.2)
279 ( 5.5)!
267 ( 2.9)
PARENTS'
EDUCATION
College grad.
State
59 ( 3.3)
23 ( 2.2)<
33 ( 3.4)
42 ( 2.6)
9 ( 1.9)
35 ( 2.4)>
213 ( 1.8)
217 ( 4.1)
238 ( 3.8)
225 ( 2.8)
*** (**.*)
226 ( 4.5)
Nation
46 ( 5.2)
53 ( 2.9)
43 ( 4.4)
31 ( 2.8)
11 ( 2.7)
16 ( 2.3)
271 ( 2.9)
281 ( 2.1)
276 ( 3.1)
278 ( 2.6)
286 ( 5.1)1
281 ( 3.2)
Some college
State
47 ( 4.6)
28 ( 3.2)<
42 ( 4.1)
35 ( 3.2)
11 ( 2.7)
37 ( 3.0)>
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
51 ( 5.2)
52 ( 3.4)
42 ( 5.1)
30 ( 3.0)
7 ( 2.3)
18 ( 3.1)
265 ( 2.6)
271 ( 1.9)
268 ( 3.5)
271 ( 2.7)
Yr** (**.1
269 ( 3.3)
HS graduate
State
47 ( 2.7)
29 ( 2.1)<
42 ( 2.3)
38 ( 1.8)
11 ( 1.7)
34 ( 2.0)>
213 ( 2.5)
216 ( 4.4)
232 ( 2.0)
222 ( 2.8)
*** (**.*)
221 ( 2.9)
Nation
49 ( 4.8)
50 ( 3.4)
45 ( 5.1)
32 ( 3.0)
6 ( 2.5)
19 ( 2.5)>
252 ( 2.9)
257 ( 1.8)
256 ( 2.8)
257 ( 2.1)
*** (**.*)
256 ( 3.8)
HS non-grad.
State
59 ( 3.1)
30 ( 3.3)<
29 ( 2.6)
33 ( 3.7)
11 ( 2.0)
36 ( 3.4)>
208 ( 3.5)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
226 ( 4.9)
Nation
60 ( 6.4)
46 ( 3.6)
39 ( 6.5)
35 ( 4.7)
1 ( 1.4)
19 ( 3.5)>
245 ( 3.3)
250 ( 2.7)
242 ( 4.3)!
247 ( 2.4)
*** (**.*)
254 ( 5.5)
Don't know
State
52 ( 2.5)
35 ( 2.3)<
33 ( 2.2)
32 ( 2.8)
15 ( 1.5)
33 ( 2.5)>
212 ( 2.7)
214 ( 3.4)
227 ( 3.7)
217 ( 3.3)
*** (**.*)
218 ( 2.6)
Nation
54 ( 6.0)
49 ( 3.8)
39 ( 5.3)
37 ( 4.3)
7 ( 2.5)
14 ( 2.4)
239 ( 5.8)
253 ( 2.3)
239 ( 4.5)
251 ( 3.6)
*** (**.*)
249 ( 4.0)
GENDER
Male
State
53 ( 1.5)
30 ( 1.6)<
36 ( 1.2)
39 ( 1.8)
11 ( 1.0)
31 ( 1.6)>
215 ( 1.6)
216 ( 2.6)
235 ( 1.7)
222 ( 2.2)<
*** (**.*)
222 ( 2.4)
Nation
50 ( 4.5)
49 ( 2.7)
42 ( 4.0)
34 ( 2.8)
8 ( 2.1)
17 ( 2.2)>
260 ( 3.1)
267 ( 1.9)
264 ( 3.3)
266 ( 2.4)
282 ( 4.9)!
268 ( 3.1)
Female
State
52 ( 1.1)
28 ( 1.7)<
36 ( 1.2)
34 ( 1.7)
12 ( 0.9)
38 ( 2.1)>
211 ( 2.3)
215 ( 2.5)
230 ( 1.9)
223 ( 2.2)<
214 ( 2.8)
225 ( 2.4)>
Nation
50 ( 4.7)
53 ( 2.9)
43 ( 4.7)
29 ( 2.5)<
7 ( 2.1)
17 ( 2.3)>
259 ( 2.2)
270 ( 1.8)>
263 ( 2.4)
266 ( 2.6)
276 ( 7.2)!
266 ( 3.3)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said
with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of
the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for
details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent
confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the
95 percent confidence level. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of
this estimated statistic. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
152
145
Virgin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
Il992
Mal State Asaeasment
1
TABLE A20B
Students' Reports on the Frequency of
Small-Group Work
At Least Weekly
Less Than Once a Week
Never or Hardly Ever
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990 Grade
8
1992
Grade 8
TOTPL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
34 ( 1.4)
39 ( 1.1)>
16 ( 0.7)
15 ( 0.8)
51 ( 1.2)
45 ( 1.1)<
214 ( 1.4)
220 ( 1.3)>
225 ( 1.7)
230 ( 1.9)
220 ( 0.9)
221 ( 1.5)
Nation
28 ( 2.5)
36 ( 1.3)>
28 ( 1.4)
26 ( 1.0)
44 ( 2.9)
38 ( 1.8)
258 ( 2.7)
265 ( 1.5)
267 ( 1.9)
270 ( 1.4)
262 ( 1.5)
266 ( 1.3)
RACE/
ETHNICITY
Black
State
32 ( 1.3)
40 ( 1.6)>
17 ( 0.9)
16 ( 0.9)
51 ( 1.3)
45 ( 1.4)<
217 ( 1.5)
222 ( 1.5)
228 ( 2.1)
233 ( 2.0)
223 ( 1.2)
223 ( 1.7)
Nation
28 ( 3.0)
40 ( 2.3)>
24 ( 3.6)
20 ( 1.7)
48 ( 4.7)
40 ( 2.2)
236 ( 3.0)
234 ( 2.3)
245 ( 4.9)
239 ( 3.0)
235 ( 3.5)
238 ( 1.6)
Hispanic
State
37 ( 2.6)
37 ( 2.3)
12 ( 1.4)
15 ( 1.9)
51 ( 2.8)
48 ( 2.3)
207 ( 2.6)
212 ( 2.9)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
211 ( 1.7)
213 ( 2.9)
Nation
37 ( 5.2)
36 ( 1.6)
22 ( 3.6)
22 ( 1.8)
41 ( 5.0)
43 ( 2.3)
241 ( 3.7)
244 ( 2.4)
249 ( 4.4)
249 ( 2.4)
240 ( 3.2)
244 ( 2.2)
TYPE OF
COiliMUNIIY
Extreme rural
State
34 ( 1.4)
32 ( 2.5)
10 ( 1.8)
10 ( 2.1)
56 ( 1.4)
57 ( 2.4)
207 ( 4.6)
211 ( 4.4)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
209 ( 1.3)
217 ( 2.7)>
Nation
34 (10.8)!
37 ( 4.6)1
27 ( 3.8)1
27 ( 4.2)1
39 (11.6)!
36 ( 6.4)!
250 ( 6.8)!
264 ( 6.4)!
264 ( 3.5)1
275 ( 4.7)1
256 ( 6.9)!
264 ( 5.3)1
Other
State
33 ( 1.6)
41 ( 1.7)>
17 ( 0.8)
14 ( 1.2)
50 ( 1.4)
45 ( 1.5)
216 ( 1.3)
218 ( 1.9)
226 ( 1.9)
224 ( 2.5)
223 ( 1.0)
218 ( 1.8)<
Nation
27 ( 2.6)
36 ( 1.7)>
28 ( 1.7)
27 ( 1.1)
45 ( 3.3)
38 ( 2.3)
260 ( 3.3)
267 ( 1.6)
264 ( 2.1)
271 ( 1.5)>
263 ( 2.0)
267 ( 1.7)
146
153
(continued on next page)
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Irusin Islands
NE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mal State Aueument
TABLE A20B
Students' Reports on the Frequency of
I
(continued)
Small-Group Work
At Least Weekly
Less Than Once a Week
Never or Hardly Ever
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
34 ( 1.4)
39 ( 1.1)>
16 ( 0.7)
15 ( 0.8)
51 ( 1.2)
45 ( 1.1)<
214 ( 1.4)
220 ( 1.3)>
225 ( 1.7)
230 ( 1.9)
220 ( 0.9)
221 ( 1.5)
Nation
28 ( 2.5)
36 ( 1.3)>
28 ( 1.4)
26 ( 1.0)
44 ( 2.9)
38 ( 1.8)
258 ( 2.7)
265 ( 1.5)
267 ( 1.9)
270 ( 1.4)
262 ( 1.5)
266 ( 1.3)
PARENTS'
EDUCATION
College grad.
State
41 ( 3.3)
36 ( 2.1)
15 ( 1.9)
15 ( 2.0)
44 ( 3.2)
49 ( 2.7)
217 ( 2.0)
226 ( 3.0)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
224 ( 3.0)
220 ( 3.4)
Nation
28 ( 3.0)
36 ( 2.0)
28 ( 1.9)
29 ( 1.3)
44 ( 3.6)
35 ( 2.4)
270 ( 2.8)
275 ( 2.4)
278 ( 2.8)
279 ( 1.8)
276 ( 2.2)
282 ( 2.1)
Some college
State
30 ( 4.8)
40 ( 3.9)
20 ( 3.2)
14 ( 2.3)
50 ( 4.8)
47 ( 4.2)
229 ( 3.6)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
232 ( 4.4)
235 ( 3.3)
Nation
27 ( 3.9)
37 ( 2.2)
27 ( 2.4)
25 ( 1.9)
46 ( 3.8)
38 ( 2.7)
265 ( 3.3)
268 ( 1.9)
268 ( 3.8)
272 ( 2.3)
268 ( 2.2)
271 ( 2.0)
HS graduate
State
27 ( 2.2)
43 ( 2.5)>
17 ( 2.0)
17 ( 1.5)
56 ( 2.4)
40 ( 2.0)<
213 ( 3.1)
219 ( 2.2)
228 ( 3.2)
232 ( 4.0)
222 ( 2.1)
221 ( 2.5)
Nation
28 ( 3.0)
34 ( 1.5)
28 ( 1.8)
26 ( 1.6)
43 ( 3.4)
40 ( 2.0)
252 ( 3.7)
255 ( 2.1)
262 ( 2.6)
260 ( 1.9)
252 ( 1.9)
254 ( 1.8)
HS non-grad.
State
38 ( 3.6)
35 ( 2.2)
11 ( 1.9)
17 ( 2.7)
50 ( 3.4)
48 ( 2.7)
208 ( 4.6)
218 ( 4.0)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
213 ( 3.5)
218 ( 2.7)
Nation
29 ( 4.5)
36 ( 2.2)
29 ( 3.0)
19 ( 2.9)
42 ( 4.5)
45 ( 2.4)
242 ( 3.9)
247 ( 2.7)
241 ( 3.6)
250 ( 2.7)
242 ( 2.8)
249 ( 2.3)
Don't know
State
33 ( 2.1)
41 ( 2.8)
16 ( 1.7)
13 ( 2.0)
51 ( 2.5)
46 ( 2.8)
216 ( 3.9)
214 ( 2.2)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
215 ( 2.1)
217 ( 2.5)
'Nation
31 ( 4.5)
35 ( 2.3)
21 ( 2.9)
22 ( 1.7)
48 ( 4.3)
43 ( 2.4)
236 ( 6.3)
253 ( 2.7)
253 ( 4.0)
260 ( 3.3)
237 ( 3.4)
245 ( 2.4)
GENDER
Male
State
37 ( 2.0)
40 ( 1.5)
13 ( 1.3)
16 ( 1.4)
49 ( 1.7)
44 ( 1.5)<
216 ( 2.1)
221 ( 1.7)
227 ( 3.3)
232 ( 2.6)
224 ( 1.4)
219 ( 2.3)
Nation
31 ( 2.9)
35 ( 1.4)
28 ( 1.7)
27 ( 1.1)
41 ( 2.9)
38 ( 1.8)
259 ( 3.3)
263 ( 1.6)
267 ( 2.6)
270 ( 1.8)
263 ( 2.0)
267 ( 1.8)
Female
State
30 ( 2.1)
38 ( 2.0)>
18 ( 1.2)
15 ( 1.3)
52 ( 1.6)
47 ( 2.0)
213 ( 2.2)
220 ( 1.9)>
224 ( 2.3)
228 ( 3.0)
217 ( 1.3)
223 ( 1.5)>
Nation
26 ( 2.4)
36 ( 1.4)>
27 ( 1.8)
25 ( 1.2)
47 ( 3.2)
39 ( 1.9)
257 ( 3.2)
266 ( 1.9)>
266 ( 2.1)
270 ( 1.5)
261 ( 1.6)
265 ( 1.5)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said
with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors of
the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for
details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly hiper than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent
confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the
95 percent confidence level. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of
this estimated statistic. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
154
147
rosin Islands
NE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Tdal State Assessment
ring
1
TABLE A21A
Teachers' Reports on the Use of Mathematical
Objects
At Least Weekly
Less Than Once a Week
Never or Hardly Ever
1992 Grade 8
1992 Grade 8
1992 Grade 8
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
TOTAL
State
0 ( 0.0)
38 ( 0.8)
64 ( 0.8)
*** (**.*)
214 ( 1.2)
225 ( 1.5)
Nation
7 ( 1.1)
50 ( 3.3)
42 ( 3.3)
270 ( 3.7)
265 ( 1.5)
271 ( 2.1)
RACE/
ETHNICITY
Black
State
0 ( 0.0)
33 ( 1.2)
67 ( 1.2)
*** (**.*)
215 ( 1.7)
227 ( 1.5)
Nation
7 ( 1.5)
50 ( 5.8)
42 ( 5.9)
*** (**.*)
239 ( 2.5)
235 ( 2.4)
Hispanic
State
0 ( 0.0)
49 ( 3.0)
51 ( 3.0)
*** (**.*)
211 ( 2.7)
216 ( 2.8)
Nation
11 ( 2.0)
49 ( 3.1)
40 ( 3.7)
250 ( 5.2)
244 ( 1.9)
247 ( 2.0)
TYPE OF
COMMUNITY
Extreme rural
State
0 ( 0.0)
19 ( 1.1)
81 ( 1.1)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
217 ( 3.4)
Nation
8 ( 5.3)1
65 ( 8.8)1
27 ( 6.8)1
*** (**.*)
267 ( 5.0)1
267 (11.7)1
Other
State
0 ( 0.0)
60 ( 1.4)
40 ( 1.4)
212 ( 1.9)
219 ( 2.0)
Nation
8 ( 1.3)
50 ( 3.7)
42 ( 3.8)
272 ( 4.5)
265 ( 1.5)
273 ( 2.0)
148
155
(continued on next page)
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
'Pugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
TABLE A21A I
Teachers' Reports on the Use of Mathematical
CARD
1992
Taal State Aseesernent
(continued)
I
Objects
At Least Weekly
Less Than Once a Week
Never or Hardly Ever
1992 Grade 8
1992 Grade 8
1992 Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
PercentSge of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
-grate
0
36
64
0.8
.
2 14
1.2
225
1.5
Nation
7
1.1
50
3.3
42
3.3
270
3.7
265
1.5
271
2.1
PARENTS'
EDUCATION
College grad.
State
0
33
67
2.2
216
3.6
228
3.1
Nation
7
1.2
46
3.2
47
3.4
287
5.7
278
2.2
282
2.3
Some college
State
0
0.0
32
68
.
.
238
3.3
Nation
6
1.1
53
4.3
41
4.4
266
5.51
267
1.8
276
2.7
HS graduate
State
0
35
65
2.1
.
2.2
15
3
223
2.6
Nation
7
1.4
53
3.7
40
3.4
260
4.2
255
1.9
259
2.3
HS non-grad.
State
0
41
59
.
210
3.5
223
3.1
Nation
10
***
2.1
** *
56
5.2
250
2.7
34
250
4.7
3.8
Don't know
State
0
0.0
40
60
2.8
.
2 13
3.1
218
1.9
Nation
9
***
2.2
** *
52
4.7
247
2.8
39
257
4.6
3.3
GENDER
-NEW
State
0
.
3821
14
2.
62
224
1. 9
Nation
7
1.1
50
3.5
43
3.5
270
4.4
264
1.6
271
2.3
Female
State
0
34
66
1.6
.
2 14
1.7
225
2.1
Nation
8
1.3
50
3.1
42 3.2
270
4.3
266
1.8
271 (2.3
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said
with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors of
the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for
details). Comparisons between 1990 and 1992 are not appropriate because of a change in the wording or format of the question.
! Interpret
with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated statistic. *** Sample size
is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
156
149
Vugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
TrIal State Asseument
ramp
1
TABLE A21B
Students' Reports on the Use of Mathematical
Objects
At Least Weekly
Less Than Once a Week
Never or Hardly Ever
1992 Grade 8
1992 Grade 8
1992 Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
17 ( 0.9)
14 ( 1.0)
68 ( 0.8)
215 ( 2.0)
227 ( 2.2)
223 ( 1.2)
Nation
20 ( 1.2)
27 ( 1.1)
52 ( 1.6)
263 ( 1.7)
272 ( 1.4)
265 ( 1.1)
WE/
ETHNICITY
Black
State
16 ( 1.1)
14 ( 1.1)
69 ( 1.1)
219 ( 2.5)
231 ( 2.7)
224 ( 1.4)
Nation
22 ( 2.5)
24 ( 1.9)
55 ( 3.4)
232 ( 2.0)
243 ( 3.2)
235 ( 1.5)
Hispanic
State
21 ( 2.0)
13 ( 2.1)
66 ( 2.6)
204 ( 2.9)
*** (**.*)
216 ( 2.5)
Nation
21 ( 1.6)
25 ( 1.4)
54 ( 2.0)
241 ( 2.2)
254 ( 2.0)
243 ( 2.0)
TYPE OF
COMMUNIN
Extreme rural
State
17 ( 1.6)
10 ( 2.1)
72 ( 1.8)
218 ( 2.6)
Nation
27 ( 3.7)1
29 ( 3.7)!
44 ( 4.9)!
268 ( 4.0)1
278 ( 3.0)1
259 ( 6.7)1
Other
State
19 ( 1.5)
14 ( 1.6)
66 ( 1.1)
214 ( 2.9)
227 ( 3.0)
218 ( 1.4)
Nation
19 ( 1.5)
27 ( 1.2)
53 ( 1.8)
264 ( 1.8)
273 ( 1.3)
267 ( 1.3)
150
(continued on next page)
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
.1:"--1
) i
Vugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
DWI State Assessment
1
TABLE A21B
Students' Reports on the Use of Mathematical
(continued)
Objects
At Least Weekly
Less Than Once a Week
Never or Hardly Ever
1992 Grade 8
1992 Grade 8
1992 Grade 8
TOTAL
--gate
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
17
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
14
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
68
0.8
Nation
215
2.0
20
1.2
227
2.2
27
1.1
223
1.I
52
1.6
263
1.7
272
1.4
265
1.1
PARENTS'
EDUCATION
College grad.
State
19
16
65
Nation
217
4.1
22
1.4
.
30
1.1
226
49
2.6
1.5
275
2.7
282
1.9
279
1.5
Some college
State
16
16
68
3.6
.
233
2.8
Nation
19
1.9
30
2.2
51
2.5
265
2.8
270
2.2
272
1.7
HS graduate
State
18
16
66
216
4.5
222
4.2
223
2.2
Nation
20
1.5
26
1.8
53
2.5
251
2.5
264
2.1
254
1.3
HS non-grad.
State
16
11
72
.
.
220
2.9
Nation
18
2.0
21
3.2
61
3.3
251
4.3
255
3.8
246
2.0
Don't know
State
16
12
72
.
216
1.6
Nation
19
2.4
22
2.0
59
2.6
248
3.9
260
4.1
249
2.2
GENDER
State
23
18
60
Nation
215
2.5
23
1.6
227
2.7
28
1.2
223
1.8
49
1.9
262
2.0
272
1.9
265
1.3
Female
State
11
10
1.4
78
Nation
217
2.9
18
1.2
227
4.1
27
1.3
222
1.5
55
1.8
265
2.2
272
1.9
265
1.4
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within * 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details). Comparisons to 1990 are not appropriate because of a change in the wording or format of the question. ! Inter-
pret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated statistic.
Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
158
151
Irugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
TAM State Aueument
TABLE A22A
Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of
Mathematics Textbook Use
Almost Every Day
At Least Once a Week
Less Than Weekly
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
84 ( 0.9)
89 ( 0.8)>
223 ( 1.0)
223 ( 1.2)
62 ( 3.4)
82 ( 1.6)>
267 ( 1.8)
271 ( 1.3)
85 ( 0.9)
90 ( 0.9)>
225 ( 1.3)
225 ( 1.3)
56 ( 7.7)
74 ( 4.2)
244 ( 4.1)
240 ( 1.7)
84 ( 2.3)
85 ( 1.9)
212 ( 2.1)
214 ( 2.3)
61 ( 6.8)
75 ( 3.5)
250 ( 3.6)
249 ( 1.6)
74 ( 0.8)
100 ( 0.0)>
209 ( 1.8)
215 ( 2.4)
50 (10.6)1
93 ( 4.9)!>
269 ( 5.3)!
268 ( 4.7)1
87 ( 1.0)
79 ( 1.7)<
225 ( 1.2)
217 ( 1.9)<
63 ( 3.9)
81 ( 2.0)>
267 ( 2.4)
272 ( 1.5)
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
15 ( 0.9)
11 ( 0.8)<
207 ( 2.3)
207 ( 2.5)
34 ( 3.2)
15 ( 1.6)<
255 ( 3.0)
256 ( 2.4)
14 ( 0.9)
10 ( 0.9)<
210 ( 2.6)
208 ( 3.8)
42 ( 7.9)
20 ( 4.0)
233 ( 5.5)!
232 ( 3.4)!
16 ( 2.2)
15 ( 1.9)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
36 ( 5.6)
18 ( 2.9)<
241 ( 4.4)
235 ( 4.6)
21 ( 0.8)
0 ( 0.0)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
40 (10.0)1
6 ( 4.7)!<
244 ( 9.4)1
*** (**.*)
13 ( 1.0)
21 ( 1.7)>
207 (2.5)
207 ( 2.8)
34 ( 3.6)
16 ( 2.0)<
255 ( 3.3)
259 ( 2.2)
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
1 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
*** (**.*)
4 ( 1.3)
3 ( 0.7)
*** (**.*)
248 ( 6.0)1
1 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
*** (**.*)
2 ( 1.3)
6 ( 1.4)
*** (**.*)
0 ( 0.5)
0 ( 0.0)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
3 ( 1.7)
6 ( 1.7)
*** (**.*)
*** r.1
6 ( 0.2)
0 ( 0.0)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
10 ( 7.3)1
1 ( 1.0)!
*** (**.*)
***
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
*** (**.*)
3 ( 1.4)
4 ( 0.9)
*** (**.*)
252 ( 7.3)1
State
Nation
RACE/
ETHNICIIY
Black
State
Nation
Hispanic
State
Nation
TYPE OF
COMMUNIN
Extreme rural
State
Nation
Other
State
Nation
152
(continued on next page
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
159
Vugin Islands
ME WON'S
REPORT
C
D
92
Trial State Assessment
TABLE A22A
Teachers' Reports on the FrequeEraey off
(continued)
Mathematics Textbook Use
Almost Every Day
At Least Once a Week
Less Than Weekly
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
84 ( 0.9)
89 ( 0.8)>
15 ( 0.9)
11 ( 0.8)<
1 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
223 ( 1.0)
223 ( 1.2)
207 ( 2.3)
207 ( 2.5)
***
Nation
62 ( 3.4)
82 ( 1.6)>
34 ( 3.2)
15 ( 1.6)<
4 ( 1.3)
3 ( 0.7)
267 ( 1.8)
271 ( 1.3)
255 ( 3.0)
256 ( 2.4)
*** (**.*)
248 ( 6.0)1
PARENTS'
EDUCATION
College grad.
State
86 ( 2.1)
90 ( 2.2)
13 ( 2.0)
10 ( 2.2)
1 ( 0.8)
0 ( 0.0)
224 ( 1.6)
225 ( 2.4)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (*.*)
***
Nation
61 ( 4.0)
83 ( 1.8)>
36 ( 4.0)
13 ( 1.6)<
3 ( 1.2)
3 ( 0.8)
281 ( 2.3)
284 ( 1.7)
265 ( 2.9)
266 ( 3.1)
*** (**.*)
253 ( 7.4)1
Some college
State
88 ( 3.1)
94 ( 2.0)
12 ( 3.1)
6 ( 2.0)
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
233 ( 3.1)
235 ( 2.4)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
68 ( 4.2)
83 ( 2.2)>
29 ( 3.9)
15 ( 2.3)<
2 ( 1.3)
2 ( 0.9)
273 ( 2.1)
273 ( 1.5)
259 ( 4.8)
258 ( 4.1)
*** (**.*)
***
HS graduate
State
86 ( 2.0)
88 ( 1.6)
13 ( 2.0)
12 ( 1.6)
2 ( 0.4)
0 ( 0.0)
255 ( 1.8)
222 ( 2.1)
*** (*.*)
*ft* 0* 1
*** r. 1
Nation
61 ( 4.4)
80 ( 2.3)>
35 ( 3.9)
16 ( 2.3)<
4 ( 1.9)
4 ( 0.8)
257 ( 2.5)
259 ( 1.5)
250 ( 3.0)
252 ( 3.3)
*** (**.*)
**.
HS non-grad.
State
82 ( 2.7)
86 ( 2.8)
17 ( 2.7)
14 ( 2.8)
2 ( 0.6)
0 ( 0.0)
215 ( 3.0)
220 ( 2.7)
*It* (**. 1
*Mk (**. I
*Mk (**. 1
Nation
67 ( 5.5)
79 ( 2.6)
29 ( 5.2)
16 ( 2.5)
4 ( 2.0)
5 ( 1.7)
244 ( 3.2)
252 ( 2.0)
st*S1 (**.*)
243 ( 6.5)
*** (**.*)
Don't know
State
82 ( 2.3)
88 ( 1.6)
17 ( 2.3)
12 ( 1.6)
1 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
219 ( 2.0)
217 ( 1.5)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*.. (.*.*)
*** rt.1
Nation
58 ( 5.8)
79 ( 2.6)>
38 ( 5.5)
17 ( 2.4)<
5 ( 2.6)
4 ( 1.1)
244 ( 4.0)
256 ( 2.1)
233 ( 4.8)
239 ( 4.2)
GENDER
Male
State
83 ( 0.9)
88 ( 1.0)>
15 ( 0.9)
12 ( 1.0)
1 ( 0.2)
0 ( 0.0)
225 ( 1.4)
222 ( 1.8)
210 ( 2.2)
209 ( 3.2)
*** (**.*)
*** (trtr.1
Nation
60 ( 3.7)
80 ( 1.8)>
36 ( 3.5)
16 ( 1.7)<
4 ( 1.6)
4 ( 0.8)
268 ( 2.3)
271 ( 1.4)
256 ( 3.5)
256 ( 2.5)
*** (**.*)
245 ( 6.5)1
Female
State
85 ( 1.3)
90 ( 1.1)>
14 ( 1.3)
10 ( 1.1)
1 ( 0.2)
0 ( 0.0)
220 ( 1.5)
223 ( 1.6)
203 ( 2.9)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
***
Nation
65 ( 3.6)
83 ( 1.6)>
32 ( 3.4)
14 ( 1.6)<
3 ( 1.4)
3 ( 0.6)
266 ( 1.9)
271 ( 1.5)
254 ( 3.4)
257 ( 3.1)
*** (*.*)
252 ( 6.6)1
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said
with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors of
the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix
for details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95
percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the
variability of this estimated statistic. ' Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
160
153
Vugin Islands
NE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mal State Assessment
1
TABLE A22B
Students' Reports on the Frequency of
Mathematics Textbook Use
Almost Every Day
At Least Once a Week
Less Than Weekly
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
73 ( 1.4)
81 ( 0.8)>
21 ( 1.1)
15 ( 0.5)<
6 ( 0.7)
4 ( 0.5)<
221 ( 1.2)
223 ( 1.3)
216 ( 1.5)
218 ( 2.1)
204 ( 3.5)
***
Nation
74 ( 1.9)
84 ( 1.0)>
20 ( 1.2)
11 ( 0.8)<
6 ( 1.0)
5 ( 0.4)
267 ( 1.3)
270 ( 1.1)
249 ( 1.8)
251 ( 1.9)
241 ( 6.0)
245 ( 2.6)
RACE/
ETHNICITY
Black
State
74 ( 1.3)
82 ( 0.9)>
21 ( 1.1)
14 ( 0.7)<
5 ( 0.8)
4 ( 0.5)
223 ( 1.3)
226 ( 1.5)
219 ( 1.8)
220 ( 2.5)
*** (**.*)
Nation
71 ( 2.8)
78 ( 2.3)
23 ( 1.9)
16 ( 1.6)<
5 ( 1.9)
6 ( 1.0)
241 ( 2.9)
239 ( 1.5)
231 ( 3.9)
227 ( 2.0)
*** (4,1%1
230 ( 4.0)
Hispanic
State
69 ( 3.2)
77 ( 2.2)
23 ( 2.8)
19 ( 1.8)
8 ( 2.1)
4 ( 1.1)
211 ( 2.0)
214 ( 2.1)
*** (1,1%1
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
***
Nation
61 ( 3.7)
73 ( 2.6)
29 ( 3.4)
17 ( 2.0)<
9 ( 1.5)
10 ( 1.4)
249 ( 2.6)
250 ( 1.3)
237 ( 5.0)
233 ( 3.3)
*** (**.*)
227 ( 5.0)
TYPE OF
COMMUNIN
Extreme rural
State
70 ( 4.0)
92 ( 1.3)>
22 ( 3.0)
4 ( 0.9)<
8 ( 1.9)
4 ( 0.9)
209 ( 3.1)
217 ( 2.4)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
***
Nation
68 (11.3)1
89 ( 3.4)1
22 ( 7.1)1
7 ( 2.9)!
10 ( 4.7)1
3 ( 0.9)!
263 ( 4.3)1
268 ( 4.7)!
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
***
Other
State
73 ( 1.5)
76 ( 1.1)
21 ( 1.2)
20 ( 0.8)
5 ( 0.8)
4 ( 0.7)
223 ( 1.3)
219 ( 1.6)
219 ( 1.6)
218 ( 2.7)
*** (**.*)
Nation
75 ( 2.2)
84 ( 1.1)>
19 ( 1.4)
11 ( 0.8)<
6 ( 1.2)
5 ( 0.5)
267 ( 1.6)
271 ( 1.3)
249 ( 2.5)
253 ( 2.2)
238 ( 4.9)1
246 ( 2.8)
154
(continued on next page
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
1 G
Higin Islands
NE NATION'S
REPORT Ramp
CARD
1992
TAM Slate Auessment
1
TABLE A22B
Students' Reports on the Frequency of
(continued)
Mathematics Textbook Use
Almost Every Day
At Least Once a Week
Less Than Weekly
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
'
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
73 ( 1.4)
81 ( 0.8)>
21 ( 1.1)
15 ( 0.5)<
6 ( 0.7)
4 ( 0.5)<
221 (1.2)
223 ( 1.3)
216 ( 1.5)
218 ( 2.1)
204 ( 3.5)
***
Nation
74 (1.9)
84 ( 1.0)>
20 ( 1.2)
11 ( 0.8k
6 ( 1.0)
5 ( 0.4)
267 ( 1.3)
270 ( 1.1)
249 ( 1.8)
251 ( 1.9)
241 ( 6.0)
245 ( 2.6)
PARENTS'
EDUCATION
College grad.
State
71 ( 4.1)
83 ( 1.5)
22 ( 2.5)
15 ( 1.7)
7 ( 2.3)
2 ( 0.8)
223 ( 1.9)
225 ( 2.2)
219 ( 4.3)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
77 ( 2.7)
86 ( 1.1)
18 ( 1.9)
10 ( 1.0)<
5 ( 1.3)
4 ( 0.5)
279 ( 1.6)
282 ( 1.6)
258 ( 2.9)
260 ( 2.8)
*** (**.*)
253 ( 5.2)
Some college
State
76 ( 3.5)
82 ( 2.6)
21 ( 3.8)
15 ( 2.5)
4 ( 1.7)
3 ( 1.4)
231 ( 2.9)
233 ( 2.6)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
***
Nation
80 ( 2.0)
87 ( 1.3)>
16 ( 1.4)
9 ( 1.1)<
4 ( 1.0)
4 ( 0.6)
270 ( 1.8)
272 ( 1.2)
255 ( 4.2)
255 ( 4.2)
HS graduate
State
73 ( 2.2)
80 ( 1.9)
21 ( 1.9)
16 ( 1.4)
6 ( 1.1)
4 ( 1.1)
222 ( 2.1)
224 ( 2.1)
219 ( 3.6)
215 ( 3.5)
Nation
71 ( 3.6)
82 ( 1.3)
22 ( 2.5)
12 ( 1.2)<
7 ( 1.6)
6 ( 0.8)
258 ( 1.8)
259 ( 1.4)
247 ( 2.5)
245 ( 3.9)
*** (**.*)
239 ( 4.4)
HS non-grad.
State
67 ( 4.3)
80 ( 2.5)
26 ( 4.1)
14 ( 1.9)
7 ( 1.3)
6 ( 1.3)
213 ( 3.0)
220 ( 2.7)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
64 ( 3.4)
77 ( 1.7)>
27 ( 2.7)
15 ( 1.5)<
9 ( 1.9)
8 ( 1.1)
244 ( 2.7)
252 ( 1.8)
241 ( 3.9)
240 ( 3.5)
Don't know
State
75 ( 3.4)
80 ( 1.8)
19 ( 2.8)
17 ( 1.7)
6 ( 1.6)
4 ( 1.1)
219 ( 2.2)
219 ( 1.8)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
64 ( 3.3)
80 ( 2.2)>
26 ( 3.0)
13 ( 1.8)<
11 ( 1.7)
7 ( 1.2)
247 ( 3.0)
254 ( 2.1)
233 ( 4.7)
240 ( 3.6)
GENDER
Male
State
71 ( 1.7)
79 ( 1.4)>
23 ( 1.5)
16 ( 1.0)<
6 ( 1.1)
5 ( 0.8)
223 ( 1.5)
223 ( 1.7)
219 ( 2.8)
219 ( 3.1)
Nation
72 ( 2.4)
84 ( 1.1)>
21 ( 1.7)
11 ( 0.9)<
7 ( 1.1)
5 ( 0.6)
269 ( 1.6)
270 ( 1.2)
250 ( 2.2)
250 ( 2.4)
239 ( 7.0)
240 ( 3.5)
Female
State
74 ( 1.7)
83 ( 1.3)>
20 ( 1.2)
15 ( 1.0)<
6 ( 0.9)
3 ( 0.6)<
219 ( 1.6)
224 ( 1.5)
213 ( 2.8)
217 ( 2.6)
Nation
76 ( 1.8)
84 ( 1.1)>
19 ( 1.3)
11 ( 0.9)<
6 ( 1.2)
5 ( 0.5)
265 ( 1.5)
270 ( 1.3)
249 ( 2.7)
252 ( 2.7)
244 ( 6.4)1
250 ( 3.6)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said
with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors of
the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural A.
ndix
for details).
If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at a
ut the
95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990
at about the 95 percent confidence level. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of
the variability of this estimated statistic. ** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
1132
155
Virgin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mal State Aseesement
Pallp
1
TABLE A23A
Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of
Mathematics Worksheet Use
Almost Every Day
At Least Once a Week
Less Than Weekly
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
TOTAL
State
2 ( 0.2)
5 ( 0.4)>
76 ( 0.6)
68 ( 0.8)<
22 ( 0.6)
27 ( 0.8)>
218 ( 1.2)
219 ( 1.3)
232 ( 2.0)
227 ( 1.5)
Nation
5 ( 1.7)
12 ( 1.9)>
63 ( 3.5)
54 ( 2.2)
32 ( 3.6)
35 ( 2.7)
264 ( 5.3)1
259 ( 4.9)
257 ( 1.8)
266 ( 1.6)>
274 ( 2.7)
273 ( 1.9)
RACE/
ETHMCIN
Black
State
3 ( 0.4)
4 ( 0.4)>
74 ( 0.8)
68 ( 1.1)<
23 ( 0.9)
28 ( 1.1)>
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
221 ( 1.4)
221 ( 1.5)
234 ( 2.2)
230 ( 1.8)
Nation
2 ( 1.1)
14 ( 3.2)>
74 ( 6.2)
55 ( 5.3)
23 ( 6.3)
31 ( 4.7)
238 ( 7.3)1
238 ( 3.1)
236 ( 2.0)
246 ( 7.7)1
239 ( 2.5)
Hispanic
State
1 ( 1.1)
7 ( 1.4)>
81 ( 2.6)
67 ( 2.2)<
17 ( 2.8)
25 ( 2.1)
209 ( 1.9)
212 ( 2.6)
*** (**.*)
219 ( 2.6)
Nation
6 ( 1.9)
11 ( 2.1)
61 ( 7.9)
52 ( 2.9)
33 ( 7.5)
36 ( 3.0)
239 ( 6.4)
240 ( 3.3)
247 ( 2.4)
258 ( 2.9)!
246 ( 2.5)<
7YPE OF
COMMUNITY
Extreme rural
State
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
91 ( 0.8)
97 ( 0.8)>
9 ( 0.8)
3 ( 0.8)<
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
211 ( 2.7)
216 ( 2.6)
*** (**.*)
Nation
0 ( 0.0)!
14 ( 7.3)!
76 (10.1)1
44 (11.4)1
24 (10.1)1
42 (12.5)1
*** (**.*)
250 (10.1)1
253 ( 5.3)1
264 ( 8.6)1
*** (**.*)
274 ( 5.1)!
Other
State
3 ( 0.3)
11 ( 1.0)>
73 ( 0.8)
59 ( 1.6)<
24 ( 0.8)
30 ( 1.5)>
220 ( 1.3)
215 ( 2.0)
233 ( 2.0)
216 ( 2.3)<
Nation
6 ( 2.3)
10 ( 1.6)
58 ( 4.0)
57 ( 2.7)
36 ( 4.2)
33 ( 2.9)
265 ( 6.3)1
257 ( 3.0)
257 ( 2.3)
267 ( 1.8)>
272 ( 2.9)
276 ( 2.0)
156
(continued on next page)
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
163
Fugin Is I 41
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Thal State Assessment
TABLE A23A
(continued)
Teachers' Reports o
the Frequency of
Mathemi tics Worksheet Use
Almost Every Day
At Least Once a Week
Loss Than Weekly
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
2 ( 0.2)
5 ( 0.4)>
76 ( 0.6)
68 ( 0.8)<
22 ( 0.6)
27 ( 0.8)>
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
218 ( 1.2)
219 ( 1.3)
232 ( 2.0)
227 ( 1.5)
Nation
5 ( 1.7)
12 ( 1.9)>
63 ( 3.5)
54 ( 2.2)
32 ( 3.6)
35 ( 2.7)
264 ( 5.3)1
259 ( 4.9)
257 ( 1.8)
266 ( 1.6)>
274 ( 2.7)
273 ( 1.9),
PARENTS'
EDUCATION
College grad.
State
2 ( 0.7)
2 ( 0.9)
80 ( 3.2)
62 ( 2.8)<
18 ( 3.2)
36 ( 2.6)>
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
218 ( 1.6)
220 ( 3.1)
*** (**.*)
230 ( 2.6)
Nation
6 ( 1.8),
12 ( 2.5)
62 ( 3.1)
52 ( 2.5)
33 ( 3.5)
36 ( 2.9)
*** (**.*)
272 ( 7.6)1
268 ( 2.1)
277 ( 2.0)>
289 ( 3.0)
288 ( 2.2)
Some college
State
2 ( 1.2)
4 ( 1.6)
69 ( 4.5)
65 ( 3.6)
29 ( 4.2)
31 ( 3.2)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
224 ( 3.3)
232 ( 3.3)
*** (**.*)
***
Nation
4 ( 1.7)
9 ( 1.9)
61 ( 4.3)
55 ( 3.0)
35 ( 4.1)
36 ( 2.9)
253 ( 4.5)!
264 ( 2.6)
270 ( 2.0)
278 ( 3.1)
275 ( 2.3)
HS graduate
State
3 ( 1.1)
5 ( 1.1)
72 ( 2.1)
71 ( 1.8)
25 ( 2.0)
24 ( 1.4)
220 ( 2.0)
219 ( 2.3)
232 ( 3.1)
225 ( 3.1)
Nation
5 ( 2.2)
11 ( 2.0)
65 ( 4.6)
56 ( 2.6)
30 ( 4.8)
33 ( 3.0)
*** (**.*)
252 ( 3.5)
250 ( 1.9)
256 ( 1.7)
263 ( 3.7)
260 ( 2.7)
HS non-grad.
State
1 ( 1.2)
8 ( 1.7)>
80 ( 2.0)
67 ( 2.8)<
18 ( 2.0)
25 ( 3.1)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
212 ( 3.3)
215 ( 3.4)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
3 ( 2.0)
17 ( 4.7)
61 ( 7.0)
48 ( 4.3)
36 ( 6.9)
36 ( 6.3)
245 ( 8.2)!
240 ( 2.8)
248 ( 2.6)
249 ( 6.0)1
255 ( 3.0)
Don't know
State
3 ( 0.8)
5 ( 1.3)
77 ( 1.7)
74 ( 2.9)
21 ( 1.5)
21 ( 2.6)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
217 ( 2.6)
216 ( 2.1)
*** (**.*)
221 ( 3.6)
Nation
6 ( 2.8)
12 ( 2.2)
65 ( 5.6)
58 ( 3.4)
29 ( 5.3)
30 ( 3.4)
250 ( 6.3)
238 ( 3.8)
254 ( 2.2)>
*** (**.*)
248 ( 3.1)
GENDER
Male
State
3 ( 0.7)
5 ( 0.6)
76 ( 1.4)
68 ( 1.6)<
21 ( 1.5)
27 ( 1.6)>
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
221 ( 1.6)
219 ( 1.9)
234 ( 3.9)
225 ( 2.4)
Nation
6 ( 1.9)
12 ( 1.9)
64 ( 3.2)
53 ( 2.3)<
31 ( 3.5)
35 ( 2.7)
258 ( 4.1)
258 ( 2.3)
265 ( 1.9)
275 ( 3.0)
274 ( 2.1)
Female
State
1 ( 0.4)
4 ( 0.9)>
76 ( 1.1)
69 ( 2.2)<
23 ( 1.2)
27 ( 2.1)
(t*.*)
215 ( 1.6)
219 ( 1.5)
231 ( 2.9)
230 ( 2.5)
Nation
4 ( 1.9)
11 ( ail>
61 ( 4.1)
54 ( 2.4)
34 ( 4.1)
35 ( 2.8)
*** (**.*)
261 ( 6.4)
256 ( 1.9)
267 ( 1.8)>
273 ( 2.9)
273 ( 2.3)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said
with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors of
the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix
for details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the
95 percent confidence level.
If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990
at about the 95 percent confidence level. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of
the variability of this estimated statistic. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
16 4
157
Virgin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mal State Assessment
romp
1
TABLE A23B
Students' Reports on the Frequency of
Mathematics Worksheet Use
Almost Every Day
At Least Once a Week
Less Than Weekly
1990
r
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
9 ( 0.7)
18 ( 0.9)>
59 ( 1.5)
51 ( 1.4)<
32 ( 1.3)
31 ( 1.3)
206 ( 2.2)
214 ( 2.2)>
219 ( 1.2)
224 ( 1.5)>
223 ( 1.5)
224 ( 1.6)
Nation
17 ( 1.7)
22 ( 1.4)
46 ( 1.8)
42 ( 1.2)
37 ( 2.5)
36 ( 1.7)
247 ( 2.9)
256 ( 2.5)
260 ( 1.4)
266 ( 1.4)>
272 ( 1.8)
273 ( 1.3)
RACE/
E711MCITY
Black
State
9 ( 0.9)
18 ( 1.1)>
57 ( 1.6)
51 ( 1.6)<
33 ( 1.5)
31 ( 1.5)
206 ( 3.4)
215 ( 2.5)
222 ( 1.4)
227 ( 1.6)
226 ( 1.4)
226.( 2.0)
Nation
23 ( 2.7)
30 ( 2.5)
56 ( 2.4)
43 ( 2.0)<
20 ( 3.1)
27 ( 2.1)
232 ( 5.8)
234 ( 2.6)
239 ( 3.0)
237 ( 1.8)
240 ( 4.3)
238 ( 1.9)
Hispanic
State
10 ( 1.5)
19 ( 1.9)>
64 ( 2.4)
52 ( 3.3)<
26 ( 2.2)
28 ( 2.7)
(**.*)
211 ( 2.1)
214 ( 3.0)
206 ( 3.4)
215 ( 3.4)
Nation
19 ( 2.7)
29 ( 2.5)>
50 ( 3.8)
40 ( 2.0)
32 ( 4.3)
31 ( 2.6)
232 ( 4.3)
239 ( 2.7)
244 ( 3.2)
248 ( 1.7)
246 ( 3.8)
246 ( 2.5)
TYPE OF
COMMUNITY
Extreme rural
State
9 ( 2.1)
18 ( 3.1)
58 ( 5.4)
52 ( 4.0)
33 ( 3.6)
31 ( 2.8)
(**.*)
210 ( 2.6)
217 ( 3.2)
211 ( 3.1)
221 ( 3.9)
Nation
20 ( 8.0)1
18 ( 3.3)!
52 ( 3.8)1
41 ( 4.2)1
28 ( 7.5)!
41 ( 5.8)1
256 ( 7.1)1
257 ( 3.8)1
266 ( 5.8)1
266 ( 7.8)1
272 ( 4.8)1
Other
State
9 ( 0.8)
15 ( 1.0)>
59 ( 1.3)
55 ( 1.9)
32 ( 1.4)
30 ( 1.6)
208 ( 2.6)
211 ( 2.7)
221 ( 1.2)
221 ( 1.6)
225 ( 1.6)
219 ( 1.7)<
Nation
16 ( 2.0)
21 ( 1.5)
46 ( 2.1)
43 ( 1.5)
38 ( 2.9)
36 ( 1.8)
246 ( 3.5)
256 ( 2.0)>
259 ( 2.0)
268 ( 1.8)>
272 ( 1.8)
274 ( 1.5)
158
1 13 5
(continued on next page)
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
irugin Islands
THE NATIOWS
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mel State Assessment
1
TABLE A23B
Students' Reports on the Frequency of
(continued)
Mathematics Worksheet Use
Almost Every Day
At Least Once a Week
Less Than Weekly
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
9 ( 0.7)
18 ( 0.9)>
59 ( 1.5)
51 ( 1.4)<
32 ( 1.3)
31 ( 1.3)
206 ( 2.2)
214 ( 2.2)>
219 ( 1.2)
224 ( 1.5)>
223 ( 1.5)
224 ( 1.6)
Nation
17 ( 1.7)
22 ( 1.4)
46 ( 1.8)
42 ( 1.2)
37 ( 2.5)
36 ( 1.7)
247 ( 2.9)
256 ( 2.5)
260 ( 1.4)
266 ( 1.4)>
272 ( 1.8)
273 ( 1.3)
PARENIS'
EDUCATION
College grad.
State
9 ( 1.4)
18 ( 1.9)>
59 ( 2.9)
53 ( 2.8)
32 ( 2.3)
29 ( 2.2)
217 ( 2.2)
223 ( 2.4)
229 ( 3.4)
230 ( 4.0)
Nation
18 ( 2.1)
21 ( 1.9)
41 ( 2.2)
42 ( 1.5)
41 ( 2.6)
37 ( 2.3)
257 ( 2.9)
267 ( 4.1)
272 ( 2.1)
278 ( 1.9)
286 ( 2.3)
286 ( 1.9)
Some college
State
8
*** ( 1.6)
(**.*)
18 ( 2.8)>
*** (**.*)
55 (
228 (
3.7)
3.4)
50 (
232 (
4.4)
4.1)
37 ( 3.7)
*** (**.*)
33 (
***
3.8)
Nation
13 ( 2.1)
20 ( 1.9)
46 ( 3.1)
41 ( 1.9)
40 ( 3.6)
39 ( 2.3)
247 ( 4.6)
257 ( 3.1)
269 ( 2.3)
271 ( 1.8)
271 ( 2.6)
276 ( 1.7)
HS graduate
State
8 ( 1.2)
18 ( 1.9)>
60 ( 2.9)
51 ( 2.6)
32 ( 2.7)
31 ( 2.4)
*** (**.*)
210 ( 3.4)
222 ( 2.0)
226 ( 2.3)
223 ( 2.4)
222 ( 3.0)
Nation
17 ( 2.7)
21 ( 1.6)
51 ( 3.2)
45 ( 1.5)
32 ( 3.6)
34 ( 1.8)
242 ( 3.9)
247 ( 2.7)
255 ( 2.2)
255 ( 1.7)
262 ( 2.2)
262 ( 2.2)
HS non-grad.
State
9 ( 2.0)
19 ( 2.3)>
60 ( 3.1)
50 ( 3.7)
31 ( 3.4)
31 ( 3.5)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
213 ( 3.6)
222 ( 2.9)
*** (1,1%1
218 ( 4.7)
Nation
20 ( 3.6)
25 ( 2.2)
51 ( 3.0)
40 ( 2.8)
29 ( 4.0)
35 ( 2.9)
*** (**.*)
245 ( 3.7)
239 ( 3.0)
248 ( 2.8)
253 ( 3.4)
252 ( 3.2)
Don't know
State
11 ( 2.3)
19 ( 1.8)
58 ( 3.9)
50 ( 2.2)
31 ( 2.7)
31 ( 2.5)
*** (**.*)
210 ( 3.6)
218 ( 2.0)
219 ( 2.3)
217 ( 3.3)
219 ( 2.2)
Nation
20 ( 3.3)
27 ( 2.3)
46 ( 3.6)
41 ( 2.3)
34 ( 3.5)
32 ( 2.4)
242 ( 3.2)
239 ( 3.0)
253 ( 2.4)>
244 ( 4.5)
255 ( 2.5)
GENDER
Male
State
11 ( 1.4)
20 ( 1.3)>
59 ( 2.1)
52 ( 2.2)
30 ( 1.7)
28 ( 1.9)
210 ( 3.0)
213 ( 2.9)
222 ( 1.7)
223 ( 1.8)
224 ( 2.5)
225 ( 2.3)
Nation
19 ( 1.8)
22 ( 1.4)
46 ( 1.9)
42 ( 1.6)
35 ( 2.7)
35 ( 1.9)
247 ( 3.4)
254 ( 2.2)
261 ( 2.1)
266 ( 1.6)
274 ( 2.3)
273 ( 1.8)
Female
State
8 ( 0.9)
17 ( 1.5)>
59 ( 2.0)
49 ( 1.9)<
34 ( 1.8)
34 ( 1.7)
215 ( 2.4)
216 ( 1.5)
224 ( 1.9)>
222 ( 2.1)
223 ( 2.2)
Nation
16 ( 1.8)
21 ( 1.6)
46 ( 2.3)
42 ( 1.3)
38 ( 2.6)
37 ( 1.8)
247 ( 3.9)
257 ( 3.2)
259 ( 1.7)
266 ( 1.6)>
270 ( 2.3)
274 ( 1.7)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said
with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors of
the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural A.. ndix
for details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at a. silt the
95 percent confidence level.
If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990
at about the 95 percent confidence level.
! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of
the variability of this estimated statistic. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
166
159
Vugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT ragp
CARO
1992
Mal State Assessment
TABLE A25A
Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of
Calculator Use
At Least Weekly
Less Than Once a Week
Never or Hardly Ever
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
TOTAL
State
17 ( 1.0)
39 ( 1.0)>
37 ( 0.6)
23 ( 0.7)<
46 ( 1.0)
38 ( 1.2)<
221 ( 1.9)
227 ( 1.5)>
228 ( 1.6)
217 ( 1.7)<
214 ( 1.3)
217 ( 2.0)
Nation
43 ( 4.6)
56 ( 3.0)
38 ( 4.3)
21 ( 2.2)<
18 ( 4.0)
23 ( 2.5)
269 ( 2.9)
274 ( 1.5)
258 ( 2.3)
257 ( 2.3)
258 ( 4.6)!
263 ( 2.2)
RACE/
ETHNICITY
Black
State
17 ( 1.2)
42 ( 1.3)>
38 ( 0.9)
21 ( 1.2)<
45 ( 1.4)
38 ( 1.4)<
226 ( 2.5)
230 ( 1.7)
231 ( 1.9)
217 ( 2.4)<
216 ( 1.4)
220 ( 1.9)
Nation
29 ( 6.0)
44 ( 3.8)
42 ( 7.9)
32 ( 4.1)
29 ( 7.9)
24 ( 3.0)
246 ( 3.6)!
243 ( 2.3)
242 ( 3.7)1
233 ( 2.5)
229 ( 8.6)1
234 ( 3.5)
Hispanic
State
19 ( 2.9)
29 ( 2.4)>
29 ( 2.5)
31 ( 2.0)
52 ( 3.8)
40 ( 2.5)
216 ( 2.9)
215 ( 3.4)
217 ( 3.2)
209 ( 2.9)
210 ( 3.8)
Nation
44 ( 5.7)
47 ( 4.7)
42 ( 5.7)
25 ( 2.4)<
13 ( 3.5)
28 ( 5.1)
244 ( 5.0)
251 ( 2.5)
251 ( 3.7)1
238 ( 3.3)<
*** (**.*)
245 ( 3.4)
TWE OF
COMMUNITY
Extreme rural
State
0 ( 0.0)
31 ( 3.2)
6 ( 0.2)
0 ( 0.0)
94 ( 0.2)
69 ( 3.2)<
*** (**.*)
210 ( 3.2)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
209 ( 2.4)
218 ( 3.3)
Nation
28 (16.5)1
44 (11.9)1
35 ( 9.9)1
24 (11.2)1
37 (17.0)!
32 (14.1)1
273 ( 4.4)!
257 ( 2.7)1
264 ( 9.7)!
267 ( 7.1)1
259 ( 6.0)!
Other
State
21 ( 1.3)
22 ( 1.2)
43 ( 0.6)
41 ( 1.3)
36 ( 1.2)
37 ( 1.7)
221 ( 1.9)
213 ( 2.1)<
228 ( 1.6)
215 ( 2.1)<
218 ( 1.5)
216 ( 2.5)
Nation
14 ( 5.1)
58 ( 3.2)>
44 ( 5.6)
20 ( 2.2)<
16 ( 4.5)
21 ( 2.5)
268 ( 3.1)
274 ( 1.5)
260 ( 2.7)
259 ( 2.4)
256 ( 6.4)1
267 ( 3.0)
160
(continued on next page
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
167
Irugin Islands
ME NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Thal State Assessment
TABLE A25A
Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of
(continued)
Calculator Use
At Least Weekly
Less Than Once a Week
Never or Hardly Ever
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
1
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
23 ( 1.1)
40 ( 1.1)>
16 ( 1.0)
15 ( 0.8)
61 ( 1.5)
46 ( 1.0)<
215 ( 1.9)
226 ( 1.4)>
226 ( 2.1)
225 ( 2.3)
219 ( 1.0)
217 ( 1.6)
Nation
40 ( 3.1)
53 (2.1)>
21 ( 1.4)
18 ( 0.9)
39 ( 3.1)
29 ( 1.6)<
266 ( 2.3)
272 ( 1.4)
264 ( 2.0)
263 ( 1.6)
257 ( 1.4)
259 ( 1.6)
PARENTS'
EDUCATION
College grad.
State
24 ( 2.4)
41 ( 2.3)>
16 ( 2.2)
17 ( 2.1)
60 ( 3.1)
42 ( 2.2)<
211 ( 3.1)
230 ( 2.3)>
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
222 ( 2.3)
219 ( 3.8)
Nation
43 ( 3.7)
60 ( 2.6)>
20 ( 1.5)
17 ( 1.2)
37 ( 3.7)
23 ( 1.8)<
278 ( 2.7)
282 ( 1.8)
274 ( 2.5)
273 ( 2.4)
271 ( 2.1)
274 ( 2.4)
Some college
State
25 ( 3.2)
48 ( 4.5)>
15 ( 3.9)
15 ( 3.2)
60 ( 4.7)
37 ( 3.9)<
237 ( 3.9)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
231 ( 3.7)
Nation
38 ( 4.1)
54 ( 2.8)>
23 ( 2.1)
19 ( 1.6)
39 ( 4.1)
28 ( 2.5)
271 ( 3.1)
273 ( 1.8)
271 ( 3.2)
269 ( 2.8)
261 ( 2.5)
265 ( 2.7)
HS graduate
State
21 ( 2.0)
40 ( 2.4)>
17 ( 2.2)
16 ( 1.8)
61 ( 2.5)
44 ( 1.8)<
217 ( 3.9)
227 ( 2.5)
224 ( 3.7)
225 ( 4.7)
221 ( 2.1)
216 ( 2.6)
Nation
38 ( 3.3)
50 ( 2.2)>
21 ( 2.4)
19 ( 1.3)
41 ( 3.8)
31 ( 1.7)
257 ( 2.8)
260 ( 1.5)
257 ( 2.7)
253 ( 2.9)
252 ( 2.7)
251 ( 2.4)
HS non-grad.
State
24 ( 2.9)
38 ( 3.4)>
11 ( 2.1)
15 ( 2.3)
65 ( 2.9)
47 ( 3.5)<
*** (**.*)
217 ( 4.3)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
211 ( 2.4)
218 ( 2.5)
Nation
41 ( 4.7)
35 ( 3.9)
17 ( 2.1)
17 ( 2.0)
42 ( 5.0)
48 ( 3.8)
241 ( 3.3)
252 ( 2.1)
*** (**.*)
250 ( 4.4)
238 ( 2.3)
245 ( 2.3)
Don't know
State
23 ( 2.1)
37 ( 2.1)>
18 ( 1.7)
10 ( 1.5)<
59 ( 2.9)
53 ( 2.2)
216 ( 4.2)
221 ( 2.7)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
213 ( 2.3)
214 ( 2.1)
Nation
36 ( 4.3)
46 ( 2.7)
22 ( 3.1)
18 ( 2.0)
43 ( 4.3)
37 ( 2.7)
247 ( 5.3)
255 ( 2.4)
245 ( 4.1)
252 ( 3.1)
232 ( 3.3)
246 ( 2.9)>
GENDER
Male
State
24 ( 1.6)
39 ( 1.8)>
17 ( 1.1)
16 ( 1.3)
59 ( 1.8)
45 ( 1.7)<
215 ( 2.6)
225 ( 1.9)>
228 ( 3.3)
224 ( 3.4)
221 ( 1.4)
218 ( 2.3)
Nation
42 ( 3.3)
53 ( 2.3)>
21 ( 1.3)
19 ( 1.2)
37 ( 3.1)
28 ( 1.7)<
266 ( 2.5)
271 ( 1.8)
266 ( 2.5)
263 ( 1.9)
258 ( 1.8)
260 ( 1.9)
Female
State
22 ( 1.6)
41 ( 1.7)>
14 ( 1.5)
13 ( 1.2)
63 ( 2.2)
47 ( 1.5)<
214 ( 3.0)
227 ( 2.2)>
224 ( 3.0)
226 ( 3.4)
216 ( 1.7)
216 ( 1.7)
Nation
38 ( 3.3)
53 ( 2.2)>
20 ( 1.8)
16 ( 1.0)
42 ( 3.4)
31 ( 1.7)<
266 ( 2.7)
273 ( 1.5)
262 ( 2.1)
263 ( 2.2)
257 ( 1.7)
258 ( 2.0)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said
with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors of
the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for
details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95percent
confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the
95 percent confidence level. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of
this estimated statistic. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
163
161
Vugin Islands
ThE NATIOWS
REPORT
CARD
1992
Total State Assessment
1
TABLE A25B
Students' Reports on the Frequency of
Calculator Use
At Least Weekly
Less Than Once a Week
Never or Hardly Ever
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
23 ( 1.1)
40 ( 1.1)>
16 ( 1.0)
15 ( 0.8)
61 ( 1.5)
46 ( 1.0)<
215 ( 1.9)
226 ( 1.4)>
226 ( 2.1)
225 ( 2.3)
219 ( 1.0)
217 ( 1.6)
Nation
40 ( 3.1)
53 ( 2.1)>
21 ( 1.4)
18 ( 0.9)
39 ( 3.1)
29 ( 1.6)<
266 ( 2.3)
272 ( 1.4)
264 ( 2.0)
263 ( 1.6)
257 ( 1.4)
259 ( 1.6)
RACE/
EIHNICITY
Black
State
23 ( 1.3)
42 ( 1.4)>
16 ( 1.2)
14 ( 0.9)
60 ( 1.7)
44 ( 1.2)<
217 ( 2.3)
229 ( 1.6)>
230 ( 2.2)
227 ( 2.7)
221 ( 1.3)
219 ( 1.7)
Nation
28 ( 3.6)
44 ( 2.7)>
23 ( 2.9)
20 ( 1.9)
49 ( 6.0)
36 ( 2.4)
236 ( 2.7)
241 ( 1.9)
242 ( 4.4)
235 ( 3.0)
236 ( 3.7)
232 ( 1.8)
Hispanic
State
22 ( 2.7)
34 ( 2.2)>
14 ( 2.3)
16 ( 1.6)
64 ( 3.4)
50 ( 2.9)<
*** (**.*)
215 ( 3.5)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
211 ( 2.0)
212 ( 3.3)
Nation
43 ( 4.4)
41 ( 2.5)
21 ( 2.7)
20 ( 1.6)
36 ( 4.8)
39 ( 3.0)
243 ( 4.5)
248 ( 2.1)
250 ( 4.9)
245 ( 2.8)
237 ( 2.9)
241 ( 2.4)
TYPE OF
COMMUN/TY
Extreme rural
State
14 ( 3.5)
20 ( 2.8)
13 ( 3.4)
9 ( 1.8)
73 ( 5.4)
71 ( 1.8)
*** (**.*)
*5* (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
209 ( 2.1)
215 ( 2.9)
Nation
19 ( 7.1)!
43 ( 8.6)1
22 ( 4.5)!
16 ( 2.6)1
59 ( 9.9)1
41 ( 7.4)1
271 ( 4.4)!
*** (**.*)
265 ( 5.5)1
258 ( 5.3)1
264 ( 5.4)1
Other
State
25 ( 1.1)
39 ( 1.4)>
17 ( 1.0)
14 ( 1.2)
58 ( 1.4)
46 ( 1.5)<
216 ( 2.0)
221 ( 2.1)
228 ( 2.2)
218 ( 3.0)<
222 ( 1.2)
217 ( 1.6)
Nation
41 ( 3.1)
56 ( 2.5)>
21 ( 1.8)
18 ( 1.1)
38 ( 3.3)
27 ( 2.0)<
265 ( 2.4)
272 ( 1.4)
264 ( 2.5)
266 ( 1.6)
258 ( 2.1)
261 ( 2.0)
162
(continued on next page)
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
169
Vugin Islands
NE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
TAM State Assessment
TABLE A25B
Students' Reports on the Frequency of
(continued)
Calculator Use
At Least Weekly
Less Than Once a Week
Never or Hardly Ever
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
17 ( 1.0)
39 ( 1.0)>
221 ( 1.9)
227 ( 1.5)>
43 ( 4.6)
56 ( 3.0)
269 ( 2.9)
274 ( 1.5)
20 ( 2.3)
36 ( 2.6)>
233 ( 2.8)
48 ( 5.3)
62 ( 3.4)
281 ( 3.2)
286 ( 1.8)
19 ( 3.7)
49 ( 3.6)>
237 ( 4.5)
42 ( 6.1
57 ( 3.9)
274 ( 3.1)
274 ( 1.6)
17 ( 2.9)
39 ( 2.7)>
228 ( 2.8)
37 ( 5.3)
50 ( 3.0)
261 ( 3.4)
262 ( 1.8)
16 ( 2.6)
38 ( 4.2)>
222 ( 3.8)
38 ( 5.8)
44 ( 3.6)
245 ( 4.0)
254 ( 2.4)
14 ( 1.8)
37 ( 2.8)>
*** (**.*)
219 ( 3.0)
45 ( 5.7)
49 ( 3.7)
241 ( 7.0)
257 ( 2.4)
18 ( 1.0)
37 ( 1.7)>
220 ( 2.9)
227 ( 2.1)
46 ( 4.9)
55 ( 3.1)
268 ( 3.2)
273 ( 1.7)
16 ( 1.6)
41 ( 1.7)>
222 ( 1.4)
228 ( 2.6)
40 ( 4.7)
56 ( 3.1)>
270 ( 3.1)
275 ( 1.8)
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
37 ( 0.6)
23 ( 0.7)<
228 ( 1.6)
217 ( 1.7)<
38 ( 4.3)
21 ( 2.2)<
258 ( 2.3)
257 ( 2.3)
38 ( 2.7)
22 ( 2.4)<
232 ( 2.2)
221 ( 4.5)
35 ( 4.6)
17 ( 1.9)<
269 ( 3.2)
267 ( 3.4)
35 ( 3.8)
17 ( 2.2)<
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
40 ( 5.1)
20 ( 2.6)<
265 ( 3.4)
264 ( 3.2)
41 ( 3.0)
24 ( 1.9)<
229 ( 2.0)
217 ( 3.8)
44 ( 5.3)
25 ( 3.0)<
248 ( 2.6)
250 ( 3.2)
31 ( 2.8)
22 ( 2.8)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
41 ( 6.7)
26 ( 4.8)
247 ( 3.8)
247 ( 4.7)1
35 ( 2.6)
26 ( 2.9)
224 ( 3.7)
217 ( 3.7)
35 ( 5.5)
30 ( 3.2)
243 ( 4.6)
246 ( 2.6)
36 ( 1.4)
23 ( 1.2)<
233 ( 2.0)
218 ( 2.7)<
35 ( 4.3)
23 ( 2.3)<
260 ( 2.8)
257 ( 2.5)
37 ( 1.4)
23 ( 1.0)<
224 ( 2.6)
217 ( 2.1)
41 ( 4.7)
20 ( 2.2)<
256 ( 2.3)
258 ( 2.6)
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
46 ( 1.0)
38 ( 1.2)<
214 ( 1.3)
217 ( 2.0)
18 ( 4.0)
23 ( 2.5)
258 ( 4.6)!
263 ( 2.2)
42 ( 3.8)
41 ( 3.0)
214 ( 1.9)
217 ( 4.2)
17 ( 4.1)
21 ( 2.5)
269 ( 5.0)1
274 ( 2.9)
46 ( 5.9)
34 ( 4.2)
*** (**.*)
***
18 ( 5.7)
23 ( 3.4)
*** (**.*)
268 ( 3.4)
46 ( 3.0)
37 ( 2.6)
215 ( 2.6)
215 ( 3.1)
19 ( 4.5)
25 ( 2.9)
257 ( 6.0)!
256 ( 2.3)
53 ( 2.9)
40 ( 4.6)
210 ( 4.0)
219 ( 3.9)
22 ( 6.5)
30 ( 5.1)
*** (**.*)
245 ( 2.5)
50 ( 2.6)
37 ( 2.8)<
213 ( 2.5)
213 ( 3.2)
20 ( 5.3)
21 ( 2.9)
*** (**.*)
250 ( 5.8)
46 ( 1.4)
40 ( 2.0)<
217 ( 2.1)
216 ( 2.6)
18 ( 3.8)
22 ( 2.5)
258 ( 5.4)
264 ( 2.5)
47 ( 1.7)
36 ( 2.0)<
212 ( 1.8)
218 ( 2.0)
19 ( 4.5)
24 ( 2.7)
258 ( 4.7)1
262 ( 2.7)
State
Nation
PARE/VS'
EDUCATION
College grad.
State
Nation
Some college
State
Nation
HS graduate
State
Nation
HS non-grad.
State
Nation
Don't know
State
Nation
GENDER
Male
State
Nation
Female
State
Nation
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said
with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors of
the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for
details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95percent
confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the
95 percent confidence level. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of
this estimated statistic. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
170
163
Vugin Islands
NE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Thal State Assessment
1
TABLE A27A
Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of
Computer Use in Mathematics Classrooms
At Least Weekly
Less Than Once a Week
Never or Hardly Ever
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
1
( 0.4)
0 ( 0.0)
21 ( 0.9)
12 ( 0.7)<
78 ( 1.0)
88 ( 0.7)>
213 ( 3.0)
217 ( 2.6)
222 ( 0.9)
221 ( 1.3)
Nation
12 ( 3.5)
8 ( 1.3)
34 ( 4.5)
18 ( 2.1)
54 ( 4.2)
74 ( 2.1)>
246 ( 5.2)1
252 ( 3.9)
264 ( 3.1)
266 ( 2.3)
266 ( 2.2)
270 ( 1.4)
RACE/
ETHNICITY
Black
State
2 ( 0.5)
0 ( 0.0)
19 ( 0.7)
12 ( 0.7)<
79 ( 0.9)
88 ( 0.7)>
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
219 ( 3.5)
217 ( 2.9)
224 ( 1.1)
224 ( 1.5)
Nation
19 ( 7.0)
13 ( 2.9)
29 ( 8.4)
20 ( 2.8)
52 ( 7.7)
67 ( 4.3)
231 ( 3.3)1
240 ( 3.5)1
239 ( 2.9)
242 ( 5.0)
238 ( 2.1)
Hispanic
State
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
27 ( 3.3)
11 ( 1.6)<
73 ( 3.3)
89 ( 1.6)>
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
215 ( 2.4)
213 ( 2.1)
Nation
10 ( 3.2)
13 ( 2.1)
26 ( 7.4)
14 ( 3.7)
64 ( 7.7)
72 ( 4.1)
232 ( 4.6)
245 ( 4.3)1
240 ( 4.7)!
248 ( 4.4)
249 ( 1.6)
TYPE OF
COMMUN/TY
Extreme rural
State
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.0)
6 ( 0.2)
28 ( 2.7)>
94 ( 0.2)
72 ( 2.7)<
211 ( 3.5)
210 ( 2.3)
217 ( 3.1)
Nation
2 ( 1.6)!
12 ( 5.7)!
21 (16.6)1
21 ( 9.5)1
77 (17.1)1
67 ( 9.7)1
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
268 ( 6.0)!
262 ( 4.1)1
287 ( 6.2)1
Other
State
2 ( 0.4)
0 ( 0.0)
24 ( 1.1)
0 ( 0.0)
75 ( 1.2)
100 ( 0.0)>
(**.*)
211 ( 3.1)
*** (**.*)
226 ( 0.9)
215 ( 1.8)<
Nation
13 ( 4.6)
7 ( 1.4)
38 ( 5.4)
18 ( 2.3)<
49 ( 4.9)
75 ( 2.6)>
249 ( 5.9)!
254 ( 3.9)!
266 ( 3.3)
265 ( 2.3)
263 ( 2.8)
271 ( 1.5)>
164
(continued on next page)
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
171
Irugin Islands
NE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Trial State Auessment
TABLE A27A
Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of
(continued)
Computer Use in Mathematics Classrooms
At Least Weekly
Less Than Once a Week
Never or Hardly Ever
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
1 ( 0.4)
0 ( 0.0)
21 ( 0.9)
12 ( 0.7)<
78 ( 1.0)
88 ( 0.7)>
213 ( 3.0)
217 ( 2.6)
222 ( 0.9)
221 ( 1.3)
Nation
12 ( 3.5)
8 ( 1.3)
34 ( 4.5)
18 ( 2.1)<
54 ( 4.2)
74 ( 2.1)>
246 ( 5.2)1
252 ( 3.9)
264 ( 3.1)
266 ( 2.3)
266 ( 2.2)
270 ( 1.4)
PARENTS'
EDUCATION
College grad.
State
1 ( 0.8)
0 ( 0.0)
20 ( 2.2)
11 ( 1.4)<
79 ( 2.3)
89 ( 1.4)>
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
225 ( 1.8)
223 ( 2.5)
Nation
10 ( 2.8)
7 ( 1.5)
33 ( 5.0)
19 ( 2.4)
57 ( 4.8)
74 ( 2.4)>
261 ( 6.4)1
269 ( 4.6)1
275 ( 3.7)
275 ( 3.1)
276 ( 2.1)
282 ( 1.7)
Some college
State
2 ( 0.2)
0 ( 0.0)
21 ( 3.9)
15 ( 2.3)
77 ( 3.9)
85 ( 2.3)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
233 ( 3.7)
235 ( 2.7)
Nation
8 ( 3.0)
8 ( 1.7)
36 ( 5.8)
20 ( 3.1)
56 ( 5.5)
72 ( 3.3)
*** (**.*)
257 ( 6.0)!
265 ( 3.1)
271 ( 2.5)
274 ( 2.4)
272 ( 1.9)
HS graduate
State
2 ( 1.6)
0 ( 0.0)
22 ( 2.5)
11 ( 1.6)<
76 ( 2.8)
89 ( 1.6)>
210 ( 4.2)
*** (**.*)
225 ( 2.0)
221 ( 2.3)
Nation
13 ( 4.2)
8 ( 1.4)
39 ( 5.6)
16 ( 2.2)<
48 ( 5.3)
76 ( 2.5)>
*** (**.*)
243 ( 4.9)
258 ( 3.1)
255 ( 3.1)
254 ( 2.5)
259 ( 1.7)
HS non-grad.
State
2 ( 0.6)
0 ( 0.0)
26 ( 2.4)
13 ( 2.7)<
72 ( 2.3)
87 ( 2.7)>
*5* (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
213 ( 2.8)
218 ( 2.7)
Nation
23 ( 7.8)
10 ( 2.0)
28 ( 6.0)
16 ( 2.5)
49 ( 5.7)
74 ( 2.3)>
244 ( 4.8)
244 ( 4.0)
253 ( 2.2)
Don't know
State
1 ( 0.3)
0 ( 0.0)
18 ( 2.1)
12 ( 2.3)
81 ( 2.1)
88 ( 2.3)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
218 ( 2.1)
216 ( 1.8)
Nation
17 ( 5.2)
11 ( 2.1)
29 ( 5.9)
17 ( 2.3)
55 ( 6.2)
71 ( 2.9)
231 ( 5.6)
*** (**.*)
251 ( 4.1)
247 ( 5.1)
256 ( 2.2)
GENDER
Male
State
1 ( 0.4)
0 ( 0.0)
19 ( 1.1)
12 ( 1.0)<
80 ( 1.1)
88 ( 1.0)>
217 ( 1.9)
217 ( 4.1)
225 ( 1.5)
221 ( 1.8)
Nation
12 ( 3.5)
8 ( 1.3)
34 ( 4.4)
18 ( 2.1)<
54 ( 4.2)
74 ( 2.2)>
245 ( 6.8)!
252 ( 4.8)
265 ( 3.8)
263 ( 3.0)
267 ( 2.6)
270 ( 1.6)
Female
State
2 ( 0.4)
0 ( 0.0)
22 ( 1.3)
12 ( 1.1)<
76 ( 1.4)
88 ( 1.1)>
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
210 ( 4.9)
217 ( 3.1)
220 ( 1.1)
222 ( 1.5)
Nation
12 ( 4.0)
8 ( 1.3)
34 ( 4.8)
18 ( 2.3)<
54 ( 4.6)
74 ( 2.2)>
247 ( 5.9)!
252 ( 4.2)
263 ( 3.3)
269 ( 2.4)
264 ( 2.3)
270 ( 1.5)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said
with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors of
the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for
details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent
confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the
95 percent confidence level.
! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of
this estimated statistic. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
172
165
Virgin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
.-mier3
CARD
1992
Trial State Msessment
1
TABLE A27B
Students' Reports on the Frequency of
Computer Use in Mathematics Classrooms
At Least Weekly
Less Than Once a Week
Never or Hardly Ever
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
7 ( 0.6)
8 ( 0.7)
5 ( 0.5)
4 ( 0.5)
89 ( 0.9)
88 ( 0.8)
209 ( 3.7)
224 ( 3.2)>
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
220 ( 0.9)
222 ( 1.2)
Nation
15 ( 1.2)
15 ( 0.9)
14 ( 1.3)
12 ( 0.8)
70 ( 1.6)
73 ( 1.3)
248 ( 2.4)
254 ( 1.9)
268 ( 2.8)
270 ( 2.2)
264 ( 1.4)
269 ( 1.0)>
RACE/
ETHNCITY
Black
State
7 ( 0.6)
8 ( 0.9)
4 ( 0.6)
3 ( 0.6)
89 ( 1.0)
68 ( 1.0)
215 ( 3.6)
229 ( 3.2)>
*** (**.*)
*** (**.)
222 ( 1.1)
224 ( 1.4)
Nation
25 ( 4.0)
23 ( 2.2)
9 ( 1.8)
10 ( 1.4)
66 ( 4.2)
67 ( 3.0)
229 ( 3.1)
230 ( 2.5)
*** (**.*)
240 ( 3.5)
240 ( 3.5)
238 ( 1.5)
Hispanic
State
7 ( 1.6)
9 ( 1.9)
5 ( 1.2)
5 ( 1.4)
88 ( 2.0)
86 ( 1.8)
210 ( 1.6)
214 ( 2.4)
Nation
19 ( 2.6)
22 ( 1.7)
13 ( 2.1)
9 ( 1.3)
68 ( 3.3)
69 ( 1.8)
228 ( 4.0)
235 ( 2.6)
*** (**.*)
239 ( 4.1)
246 ( 3.2)
249 ( 1.7)
TYPE OF
COMMUNITY
Extreme rural
State
6 ( 1.3)
5 ( 0.7)
6 ( 1.0)
4 ( 1.3)
88 ( 2.1)
91 ( 1.0)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (t*.*)
211 ( 1.9)
215 ( 2.5)
Nation
10 ( 4.3)1
19 ( 5.0)1
12 ( 5.9)1
13 ( 3.1)1
77 ( 8.5)1
69 ( 6.4)1
265 ( 8.6)1
*** (**.*)
272 ( 3.8)1
258 ( 4.6)1
267 ( 5.7)1
Other
State
7 ( 0.7)
9 ( 1.0)
4 ( 0.5)
3 ( 0.5)
89 ( 1.0)
88 ( 1.0)
214 ( 4.1)
222 ( 4.4)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
222 ( 0.9)
218 ( 1.5)
Nation
15 ( 1.3)
14 ( 0.9)
15 ( 1.6)
12 ( 0.9)
70 ( 1.9)
74 ( 1.5)
250 ( 3.1)
256 ( 2.2)
268 ( 3.4)
271 ( 2.4)
263 ( 1.8)
270 ( 1.2)>
166
(continued on next page)
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
173
Vugin Islands
ME NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Taal State Assessment
1
TABLE A27B
Students' Reports on the Frequency of
(continued)
Computer Use in Mathematics Classrooms
At Least Weekly
Less Than Once a Week
Never or Hardly Ever
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
7 ( 0.6)
8 ( 0.7)
5 ( 0.5)
4 ( 0.5)
89 ( 0.9)
88 ( 0.8)
209 ( 3.7)
224 ( 3.2)>
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
220 ( 0.9)
222 ( 1.2)
Nation
15 ( 1.2)
15 ( 0.9)
14 ( 1.3)
12 ( 0.8)
70 ( 1.6)
73 ( 1.3)
248 ( 2.4)
254 ( 1.9)
268 ( 2.8)
270 ( 2.2)
264 ( 1.4)
269 ( 1.0)>
PARENTS'
EDUCATION
College grad.
State
10 ( 2.0)
11 ( 1.5)
4 ( 1.1)
6 ( 1.4)
86 ( 2.5)
83 ( 1.9)
(**.*)
*** (**.*)
221 ( 1.7)
224 ( 2.3)
Nation
17 ( 1.5)
16 ( 1.0)
15 ( 1.8)
13 ( 1.0)
69 ( 2.1)
71 ( 1.3)
260 ( 3.1)
266 ( 2.7)
281 ( 3.1)
279 ( 2.5)
277 ( 1.9)
282 ( 1.6)
Some college
State
7 ( 2.1)
9 ( 2.3)
5 ( 1.7)
3 ( 1.4)
87 ( 3.1)
87 ( 2.5)
(**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
230 ( 3.1)
233 ( 2.5)
Nation
13 ( 1.9)
15 ( 1.7)
14 ( 2.0)
12 ( 1.3)
73 ( 2.1)
73 ( 1.8)
251 ( 5.4)
255 ( 3.0)
*** (**.*)
273 ( 3.3)
269 ( 1.6)
273 ( 1.4)
HS graduate
State
6 ( 0.9)
9 ( 1.4)
5 ( 1.2)
6 ( 1.1)
90 ( 1.6)
86 ( 1.5)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
221 ( 1.7)
222 ( 2.0)
Nation
14 ( 1.8)
15 ( 1.5)
16 ( 2.3)
11 ( 1.2)
70 ( 2.5)
73 ( 2.1)
245 ( 4.2)
244 ( 3.2)
257 ( 4.0)
259 ( 3.5)
256 ( 1.6)
258 ( 1.6)
HS non-grad.
State
5 ( 1.4)
6 ( 2.0)
5 ( 1.5)
0 ( 0.5)<
90 ( 2.2)
94 ( 2.0)
*5* (1,5.1
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
212 ( 2.5)
218 ( 2.3)
Nation
16 ( 2.8)
12 ( 1.6)
11 ( 2.3)
9 ( 1.7)
72 ( 3.3)
79 ( 2.4)
242 ( 4.4)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
246 ( 2.0)
249 ( 2.0)
Don't know
State
6 ( 1.5)
7 ( 1.4)
5 ( 0.9)
2 ( 0.7)
89 ( 1.5)
91 ( 1.6)
*5* (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
217 ( 2.1)
217 ( 1.5)
Nation
16 ( 3.0)
16 ( 2.1)
11 ( 2.9)
9 ( 1.4)
73 ( 3.2)
75 ( 2.6)
237 ( 4.1)
*** (**.*)
*** (r*.*)
242 ( 3.3)
253 ( 2.2)
GENDER
Male
State
9 ( 1.2)
9 ( 0.9)
6 ( 0.7)
4 ( 0.6)
85 ( 1.2)
87 ( 1.1)
*** (**.*)
224 ( 4.2)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
222 ( 1.2)
222 ( 1.7)
Nation
17 ( 1.5)
18 ( 1.3)
16 ( 1.6)
13 ( 1.1)
67 ( 2.0)
69 ( 1.6)
247 ( 3.3)
254 ( 2.3)
266 ( 3.6)
269 ( 2.4)
266 ( 1.8)
269 ( 1.2)
Female
State
5 ( 1.1)
8 ( 1.1)
3 ( 0.7)
4 ( 0.8)
92 ( 1.1)
88 ( 1.2)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
217 ( 1.3)
222 ( 1.4)
Nation
14 ( 1.3)
12 ( 0.9)
12 ( 1.4)
11 ( 0.8)
74 ( 1.7)
77 ( 1.3)
249 ( 3.3)
254 ( 2.4)
271 ( 3.6)
271 ( 3.0)
262 ( 1.5)
268 ( 1.3)>
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said
with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errorsof
the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for
details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent
confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the
95 percent confidence level. ! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of
this estimated statistic. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
BEST COPY AVAILABI.
174
167
'Pugin Islands
NE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mal State Asamment
TABLE A28
I
Students' Knowledge of Using Calculators
1992 Grade 8
High
IOther
High
Other
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
TOTAL
TOTAL
State
15 ( 1.0)
85 ( 1.0)
State
15 ( 1.0)
85 ( 1.0)
230 ( 2.9)
220 ( 1.4)
230 ( 2.9)
220 ( 1.4)
Nation
26 ( 0.9)
74 ( 0.9)
Nation
26 ( 0.9)
74 ( 0.9)
280 ( 1.6)
260 ( 1.1)
280 ( 1.6)
260 ( 1.1)
RACE/
PARENTS'
ETHNICITY
EDUCATION
Black
College grad.
State
16 ( 1.2)
84 ( 1.2)
State
18 ( 2.3)
82 ( 2.3)
231 ( 2.9)
222 ( 1.6)
*** (**.*)
222 ( 3.3)
Nation
15 ( 1.7)
85 ( 1.7)
Nation
30 ( 1.6)
70 ( 1.6)
238 ( 4.7)
233 ( 1.9)
291 ( 2.3)
273 ( 1.7)
Hispanic
Some college
State
13 ( 2.5)
87 ( 2.5)
State
16 ( 3.5)
84 ( 3.5)
*** (**.*)
212 ( 2.6)
*** (**.*)
233 ( 3.6)
Nation
18 ( 1.7)
82 ( 1.7)
Nation
26 ( 1.9)
74 ( 1.9)
251 ( 4.0)
241 ( 1.9)
283 ( 2.9)
263 ( 2.0)
TYPE OF
HS graduate
COMMUNITY
State
17 ( 2.4)
83 ( 2.4)
Extreme rural
*** (**.*)
219 ( 2.7)
State
11 ( 2.4)
89 ( 2.4)
Nation
21 ( 1.5)
79 ( 1.5)
*** (**.*)
213 ( 3.7)
267 ( 3.0)
252 ( 2.0)
Nation
26 ( 3.5)!
74 ( 3.5)1
282 ( 4.7)!
262 ( 4.9)1
HS non-grad.
State
12 ( 2.6)
88 ( 2.6)
Other
*** (**.*)
218 ( 3.2)
State
17 ( 1.5)
83 ( 1.5)
Nation
24 ( 2.7)
76 ( 2.7)
226 ( 3.6)
217 ( 1.8)
*** (**.*)
242 ( 2.3)
Nation
27 ( 1.2)
73 ( 1.2)
282 ( 1.6)
262 ( 1.5)
Don't Know
State
14 ( 2.6)
86 ( 2.6)
215 ( 2.1)
Nation
20 ( 2.4)
80 ( 2.4)
264 ( 4.3)
248 ( 2.6)
GENDER
Male
State
16 ( 1.8)
84 ( 1.8)
288 ( 4.1)
221 ( 2.2)
Nation
23 ( 1.4)
77 ( 1.4)
279 ( 2.4)
261 ( 1.4)
Female
State
15 ( 1.6)
85 ( 1.6)
*** (**.*)
220 ( 1.8)
Nation
29 ( 1.1)
71 ( 1.1)
281 ( 1.9)
260 ( 1.5)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said
with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within I 2 standard errors of
the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for
details). Comparisons to 1990 are not appropriate because of the changing nature of the calculator-suitable and calculator-unsuitable items
and the changing nature of the definitions of the "High" and "Other" groups from 1990 to 1992.
Students in the "High" group used the
calculator for atleast 65 percent of the calculator-suitable items and used the calculator for no more than one of the calculator-unsuitable
items. Students in the "Other" group used the calculator for less than 65 percent of the calculator-suitable items or used it for more than
one of the calculator-unsuitable items.
! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the
variability of this estimated statistic. ** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
168
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
175
Vugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mal State Assessment
TABLE A32
Students' Reports on Types of Reading
Materials in the Home
Zero to Two Types
Three Types
Four Types
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
24 ( 1.1)
25 ( 0.9)
36 ( 1.6)
37 ( 1.2)
40 ( 1.4)
39 ( 1.0)
213 ( 1.8)
218 ( 1.7)
217 ( 1.8)
218 ( 1.5)
224 ( 1.3)
228 ( 1.6)
Nation
21 ( 1.0)
21 ( 0.7)
30 ( 1.0)
31 ( 0.7)
48 ( 1.3)
48 ( 1.0)
244 ( 2.1)
247 ( 1.2)
259 ( 1.6)
266 ( 1.3)>
272 ( 1.5)
275 ( 1.1)
°
RACE/
ETHNICITY
Black
State
23 ( 1.5)
25 ( 1.2)
37 ( 1.6)
36 ( 1.4)
40 ( 1.5)
39 ( 1.3)
215 ( 2.5)
220 ( 1.9)
220 ( 1.8)
220 ( 1.6)
226 ( 1.7)
231 ( 2.0)
Nation
31 ( 1.9)
31 ( 1.9)
36 ( 2.2)
38 ( 1.5)
33 ( 2.4)
31 ( 1.9)
234 ( 3.0)
228 ( 2.4)
233 ( 4.3)
238 ( 1.8)
246 ( 2.9)
242 ( 2.5)
Hispanic
State
27 ( 2.6)
24 ( 2.1)
36 ( 3.8)
39 ( 2.4)
38 ( 3.3)
37 ( 2.2)
205 ( 3.6)
209 ( 3.0)
205 ( 2.6)
212 ( 3.3)
216 ( 2.5)
218 ( 2.6)
Nation
44 ( 3.0)
45 ( 1.9)
30 ( 2.4)
28 ( 1.5)
26 ( 2.3)
27 ( 1.8)
235 ( 3.5)
238 ( 1.5)
246 ( 4.6)
250 ( 2.4)
253 ( 3.7)
252 ( 3.2)
TWE OF
COMMUN/TY
Extreme rural
State
28 ( 1.6)
29 ( 1.1)
36 ( 4.0)
35 ( 2.6)
36 ( 2.7)
36 ( 1.9)
204 ( 3.5)
212 ( 5.1)
207 ( 3.4)
211 ( 3.9)
215 ( 4.2)
223 ( 3.4)
Nation
17 ( 4.9)!
20 ( 3.2)1
33 ( 3.2)1
28 ( 2.7)1
50 ( 5.1)1
53 ( 4.7)1
249 ( 5.6)!
254 ( 5.2)1
265 ( 5.2)1
263 ( 5.4)!
275 ( 4.1)1
Other
State
22 ( 1.3)
26 ( 1.5)
36 ( 1.7)
38 ( 1.5)
41 ( 1.6)
36 ( 1.5)
215 ( 2.1)
217 ( 1.6)
219 ( 2.0)
215 ( 1.9)
226 ( 1.4)
223 ( 2.3)
Nation
22 ( 1.5)
20 ( 0.8)
30 ( 1.3)
32 ( 0.9)
48 ( 1.5)
48 ( 1.1)
243 ( 2.4)
249 ( 1.5)
259 ( 2.2)
267 ( 1.5)>
272 ( 1.6)
276 ( 1.3)
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
176
(continued on next page)
169
Virgin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
TAM State Assessment
TABLE A32
Students' Reports on Types of Reading
(continued)
Materials in the Home
Zero to Two Types
Three Types
Four Types
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
24 ( 1.1)
25 ( 0.9)
36 ( 1.6)
37 ( 1.2)
40 ( 1.4)
39 ( 1.0)
213 ( 1.8)
218 ( 1.7)
217 ( 1.8)
218 ( 1.5)
224 ( 1.3)
228 ( 1.6)
Nation
21 ( 1.0)
21 ( 0.7)
30 ( 1.0)
31 ( 0.7)
48 ( 1.3)
48 ( 1.0)
244 ( 2.1)
247 ( 1.2)
259 ( 1.6)
266 ( 1.3)>
272 ( 1.5)
275 ( 1.1)
PARENTS'
EDUCATION
College grad.
State
14 ( 1.8)
18 ( 1.9)
31 ( 2.9)
32 ( 2.4)
55 ( 3.1)
51 ( 2.6)
(**.*)
213 ( 3.7)
219 ( 3.9)
226 ( 2.4)
228 ( 2.4)
Nation
10 ( 0.8)
12 ( 0.7)
28 ( 1.8)
27 ( 1.2)
62 ( 2.0)
61 ( 1.5)
254 ( 3.3)
259 ( 3.1)
270 ( 2.4)
277 ( 2.1)
280 ( 1.7)
283 ( 1.5)
Some college
State
19 ( 3.2)
13 ( 2.7)
34 ( 3.8)
30 ( 4.1)
47 ( 3.9)
56 ( 3.9)
(**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
234 ( 3.5)
235 ( 3.2)
Nation
17 ( 1.5)
16 ( 1.2)
32 ( 1.7)
34 ( 1.6)
51 ( 2.0)
50 ( 1.8)
251 ( 4.8)
254 ( 2.6)
262 ( 2.9)
269 ( 2.0)
275 ( 2.1)
276 ( 1.7)
HS graduate
State
20 ( 2.3)
25 ( 2.0)
40 ( 2.9)
38 ( 2.1)
40 ( 2.5)
38 ( 2.7)
216 ( 2.9)
216 ( 3.1)
220 ( 3.1)
221 ( 2.7)
223 ( 2.1)
227 ( 2.8)
Nation
26 ( 2.2)
25 ( 1.4)
33 ( 1.9)
35 ( 1.6)
40 ( 1.7)
41 ( 1.6)
246 ( 2.1)
243 ( 2.1)
253 ( 3.5)
258 ( 2.3)
262 ( 2.0)
262 ( 1.8)
HS non-grad.
State
30 ( 3.5)
27 ( 2.8)
39 ( 3.3)
44 ( 3.3)
30 ( 2.9)
28 ( 3.6)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
207 ( 4.3)
215 ( 3.4)
*** (**.*)
***
Nation
47 ( 4.0)
44 ( 3.1)
28 ( 3.0)
32 ( 2.0)
25 ( 2.8)
25 ( 2.8)
239 ( 2.9)
241 ( 2.5)
244 ( 3.4)
251 ( 2.8)
243 ( 3.9)
257 ( 4.0)
Don't know
State
33 ( 2.4)
34 ( 2.5)
36 ( 3.1)
38 ( 2.5)
31 ( 3.2)
28 ( 2.1)
211 ( 3.4)
215 ( 2.5)
220 ( 3.0)
215 ( 2.9)
219 ( 3.2)
223 ( 3.8)
Nation
38 ( 2.9)
39 ( 2.5)
32 ( 3.2)
33 ( 2.1)
30 ( 3.4)
28 ( 2.3)
228 ( 5.2)
241 ( 2.2)
240 ( 4.7)
256 ( 3.2)
256 ( 5.0)
260 ( 3.7)
GENDER
Male
State
24 ( 1.4)
25 ( 1.5)
37 ( 2.3)
38 ( 1.5)
38 ( 2.0)
37 ( 1.6)
214 ( 2.8)
219 ( 2.6)
220 ( 2.5)
218 ( 2.2)
226 ( 1.9)
227 ( 1.9)
Nation
21 ( 1.5)
22 ( 0.8)
31 ( 1.5)
31 ( 0.9)
48 ( 1.4)
48 ( 1.2)
243 ( 2.4)
248 ( 1.8)
260 ( 2.0)
266 ( 1.6)>
274 ( 1.9)
274 ( 1.5)
Female
State
23 ( 1.7)
24 ( 1.2)
35 ( 1.7)
35 ( 1.9)
42 ( 1.6)
40 ( 1.6)
211 ( 2.6)
216 ( 2.1)
213 ( 1.8)
219 ( 2.1)
223 ( 1.4)
229 ( 2.2)>
Nation
22 ( 1.2)
20 ( 1.0)
29 ( 1.4)
32 ( 1.2)
49 ( 1.9)
48 ( 1.3)
245 ( 2.5)
246 ( 1.8)
258 ( 2.1)
265 ( 1.5)>
270 ( 1.8)
276 ( 1.3)>
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said
with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors of
the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for
details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent
confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the
95 percent confidence level. ! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of
this estimated statistic. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
170
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
)
Vagin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT ramp
CARD
1992
Mal State Summed
1
TABLE A33
Students' Reports on the Amount of Time
Spent Watching Television Each Day
One Hour or Less
Two Hours
Three Hours
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
18 ( 1.2)
13 ( 0.9)<
14 ( 1.0)
13 ( 0.7)
17 ( 1.3)
16 ( 0.7)
213 ( 2.1)
215 ( 3.0)
219 ( 2.1)
219 ( 2.8)
222 ( 1.6)
228 ( 2.3)
Nation
12 ( 0.8)
15 ( 0.6)>
21 ( 0.9)
23 ( 0.6)
22 ( 0.8)
22 ( 0.6)
269 ( 2.4)
276 ( 2.2)
268 ( 1.9)
276 ( 1.6)>
266 ( 1.8)
270 ( 1.2)
RACE/
ETHNICITY
Black
State
17 ( 1.2)
12 ( 1.1)<
14 ( 1.1)
13 ( 0.9)
17 ( 1.4)
16 ( 1.1)
215 ( 2.3)
218 ( 3.6)
220 ( 2.4)
222 ( 3.3)
225 ( 2.0)
229 ( 3.0)
Nation
6 ( 0.8)
7 ( 1.2)
13 ( 1.7)
10 ( 1.1)
17 ( 2.1)
17 ( 1.7)
*** (**.*)
238 ( 5.5)
236 ( 7.2)
238 ( 3.8)
240 ( 5.6)
244 ( 3.6)
Hispanic
State
17 ( 2.9)
14 ( 1.9)
17 ( 2.7)
13 ( 1.7)
18 ( 3.1)
16 ( 2.1)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
***
Nation
14 ( 2.4)
13 ( 1.2)
20 ( 2.5)
20 ( 1.5)
19 ( 2.1)
23 ( 1.7)
245 ( 4.0)
243 ( 3.5)
250 ( 2.8)
242 ( 6.3)
253 ( 2.2)
TYPE OF
COMMUNITY
Extreme rural
State
.
19 ( 4.3)
17 ( 1.3)
16 ( 3.3)
13 ( 1.4)
20 ( 3.4)
15 ( 1.5)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
***
Nation
14 ( 3.3)1
14 ( 2.2)1
19 ( 2.6)1
21 ( 2.7)1
23 ( 2.0)1
24 ( 1.9)1
279 ( 6.0)1
*** (**.*)
277 ( 4.9)1
*** (**.*)
269 ( 4.7)1
Other
State
17 ( 1.2)
11 ( 1.3)<
14 ( 0.9)
14 ( 1.1)
17 ( 1.4)
16 ( 1.0)
215 ( 2.3)
211 ( 4.0)
223 ( 2.4)
215 ( 3.1)
224 ( 1.7)
223 ( 2.8)
Nation
12 ( 1.0)
15 ( 0.6)
21 ( 1.0)
25 ( 0.9)
23 ( 1.2)
22 ( 0.7)
268 ( 2.9)
275 ( 2.3)
269 ( 2.3)
277 ( 1.7)>
266 ( 2.3)
272 ( 1.4)
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
178
(continued on next page)
171
Vingin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mal State Auessment
ramp
TABLE A33
Students' Reports on the Amount of Time
(continued)
Spent Watching Television Each Day
One Hour or Less
Two Hours
Three Hours
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
18 ( 1.2)
13 ( 0.9)<
14 ( 1.0)
13 ( 0.7)
17 ( 1.3)
16 ( 0.7)
213 ( 2.1)
215 ( 3.0)
219 ( 2.1)
219 ( 2.8)
222 ( 1.6)
228 ( 2.3)
Nation
12 ( 0.8)
15 ( 0.6)>
21 ( 0.9)
23 ( 0.6)
22 ( 0.8)
22 ( 0.6)
269 ( 2.4)
276 ( 2.2)
268 ( 1.9)
276 ( 1.6)>
266 ( 1.8)
270 ( 1.2)
PARENTS'
EDUCA770N
College grad.
State
16 ( 1.7)
15 ( 2.2)
14 ( 1.7)
12 ( 2.0)
17 ( 2.2)
21 ( 2.5)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
233 ( 4.5)
Nation
17 ( 1.3)
19 ( 1.1)
22 ( 1.6)
27 ( 1.0)
23 ( 1.1)
23 ( 1.1)
283 ( 2.9)
289 ( 2.4)
280 ( 2.6)
285 ( 2.3)
277 ( 2.3)
283 ( 1.7)
Some college
State
16 ( 3.4)
8 ( 1.9)
15 ( 2.8)
15 ( 2.6)
19 ( 3.3)
21 ( 3.0)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
***
Nation
10 ( 1.4)
16 ( 1.1)>
25 ( 2.4)
24 ( 1.5)
23 ( 2.6)
22 ( 1.4)
273 ( 3.5)
275 ( 3.2)
278 ( 2.3)
269 ( 3.4)
273 ( 2.6)
HS graduate
State
20 ( 2.4)
13 ( 1.7)
13 ( 1.7)
13 ( 1.2)
17 ( 2.2)
15 ( 1.6)
213 ( 3.9)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
223 ( 3.5)
228 ( 4.0)
Nation
8 ( 1.0)
12 ( 1.1)
17 ( 1.4)
21 ( 1.0)
23 ( 2.0)
22 ( 1.2)
248 ( 5.5)
259 ( 3.5)
258 ( 3.4)
265 ( 2.6)
260 ( 3.6)
261 ( 1.9)
HS non-grad.
State
15
*** ( 2.3)
(**.*)
14
*** ( 2.4)
(**.*)
16
*** ( 3.1)
(**.*)
16 ( 2.3)
*** (**.*)
17
*** ( 2.9)
(**.*)
15 (
***
2.5)
Nation
12 ( 2.2)
12 ( 1.6)
20 ( 3.1)
17 ( 1.5)
21 ( 2.8)
22 ( 1.7)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
264 ( 5.3)
*** (**.*)
247 ( 2.8)
Don't know
State
18 ( 2.4)
12 ( 1.9)
15 ( 2.8)
12 ( 1.6)
17 ( 2.0)
11 ( 1.7)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
8 ( 1.5)
9 ( 1.3)
18 ( 1.9)
17 ( 2.1)
17 ( 2.1)
21 ( 1.8)
(**.*)
*** (**.*)
258 ( 3.7)
*** (**.*)
258 ( 3.5)
GENDER
Male
State
20 ( 1.9)
15 ( 1.4)
15 ( 1.5)
14 ( 1.3)
20 ( 1.9)
17 ( 1.1)
214 ( 2.6)
213 ( 3.3)
224 ( 3.1)
218 ( 3.4)
224 ( 2.2)
227 ( 2.9)
Nation
11 ( 0.9)
14 ( 0.9)
22 ( 1.2)
22 ( 0.7)
22 ( 1.0)
23 ( 0.9)
268 ( 3.7)
274 ( 2.8)
266 ( 2.5)
274 ( 1.9)>
267 ( 2.3)
272 ( 1.7)
Female
State
16 ( 1.3)
10 ( 1.3)<
14 ( 1.2)
12 ( 1.1)
15 ( 1.2)
15 ( 1.4)
211 ( 3.3)
218 ( 4.4)
214 ( 3.5)
220 ( 4.3)
219 ( 3.5)
229 ( 3.6)
Nation
14 ( 1.1)
17 ( 0.7)
20 ( 1.3)
24 ( 1.0)>
23 ( 1.4)
22 ( 0.7)
269 ( 3.3)
277 ( 2.3)
269 ( 2.4)
278 ( 1.9)>
265 ( 2.2)
269 ( 1.5)
(continued on next page)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said
with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within I 2 standard errors of
the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for
details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent
confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the
95 percent confidence level.
! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of
this estimated statistic. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
172
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
179
Virgin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
TABLE A33
I
Students' Reports on the Amount of Time
CARD
1992
Trtal State Assessment
(continued)
I
Spent Watching Television Each Day
Four to Five Hours
Slx Hours or More
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
MA.L.L
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
24 ( 1.5)
26 ( 1.3)
27 ( 1.0)
32 ( 1.2)>
222 ( 2.0)
225 ( 1.6)
218 ( 1.7)
221 ( 1.7)
Nation
28 ( 1.1)
26 ( 0.7)
16 ( 1.0)
13 ( 0.4)
262 ( 1.6)
260 ( 1.1)
245 ( 2.0)
243 ( 1.5)
RACE/
EIFINICRY
Black
State
25 ( 1.9)
26 ( 1.4)
27 ( 1.3)
33 ( 1.3)>
225 ( 1.9)
228 ( 1.6)
222 ( 2.3)
222 ( 1.8)
Nation
32 ( 1.8)
33 ( 1.5)
32 ( 2.2)
33 ( 1.6)
244 ( 3.9)
240 ( 1.9)
233 ( 3.4)
227 ( 2.3)
Hispanic
State
20 ( 2.9)
25 ( 2.3)
28 ( 2.0)
32 ( 2.3)
*** (**.*)
217 ( 3.9)
207 ( 2.9)
214 ( 2.9)
Nation
31 ( 3.1)
27 ( 1.6)
17 ( 1.7)
18 ( 1.3)
247 ( 3.9)
247 ( 2.6)
236 ( 5.3)
224 ( 2.6)
TYPE OF
COMMUNITY
Extreme rural
State
20 ( 2.1)
26 ( 3.2)
25 ( 1.3)
30 ( 2.3)
217 ( 3.1)
*** (**.*)
216 ( 3.7)
Nation
26 ( 2.7)!
30 ( 2.1)1
19 (3.8)!
11 ( 2.2)1
257 ( 4.1)1
261 ( 4.0)!
*** (**.*)
243 ( 9.2)!
Other
State
25 ( 1.8)
26 ( 1.4)
27 ( 1.1)
34 ( 1.6)>
224 ( 2.1)
223 ( 2.4)
220 ( 1.8)
218 ( 2.2)
Nation
27 ( 1.2)
25 ( 0.8)
17 ( 1.4)
13 ( 0.6)
260 ( 2.1)
262 ( 1.3)
245 ( 2.8)
246 ( 2.1)
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
180
(continued on next page)
173
Virgin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mal State Auessment
TABLE A33
(continued)
Students' Reports on the Amount of Time
Spent Watching Television Each Day
Four to Five Hours
Six Hours or More
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
24 ( 1.5)
26 ( 1.3)
27 ( 1.0)
32 ( 1.2)>
222 ( 2.0)
225 ( 1.6)
218 ( 1.7)
221 ( 1.7)
Nation
28 ( 1.1)
26 ( 0.7)
16 ( 1.0)
13 ( 0.4)
262 ( 1.6)
260 ( 1.1)
245 ( 2.0)
243 ( 1.5)
PARENTS'
EDUCATION
College grad.
State
27 ( 3.0)
23 ( 2.0)
26 ( 3.0)
30 ( 2.3)
223 ( 3.1)
226 ( 3.8)
214 ( 3.1)
219 ( 3.7)
Nation
25 ( 1.5)
21 ( 0.9)
12 ( 1.1)
10 ( 0.6)
271 ( 2.4)
271 ( 2.1)
253 ( 3.0)
248 ( 3.0)
Some college
State
27 ( 3.4)
31 ( 3.8)
23 ( 4.4)
25 ( 3.5)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
28 ( 2.2)
27 ( 1.3)
14 ( 1.5)
12 ( 1.0)
270 ( 2.9)
266 ( 2.0)
243 ( 3.7)
251 ( 3.7)
HS graduate
State
25 ( 2.6)
27 ( 2.0)
25 ( 2.4)
32 ( 1.7)
227 ( 3.4)
223 ( 3.2)
221 ( 3.6)
222 ( 3.3)
Nation
32 ( 2.3)
29 ( 1.3)
19 ( 1.6)
16 ( 1.3)
254 ( 2.5)
254 ( 2.3)
251 ( 3.9)
238 ( 2.6)
HS non-grad.
State
22 ( 4.1)
24 ( 2.9)
30 ( 3.1)
31 ( 3.7)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
221 ( 4.3)
Nation
28 ( 2.9)
31 ( 1.7)
20 ( 2.4)
18 ( 1.7)
245 ( 3.5)
245 ( 2.2)
*** (**.*)
235 ( 5.4)
Don't know
State
21 ( 2.1)
27 ( 2.2)
28 ( 1.9)
38 ( 2.6)
215 ( 5.3)
224 ( 4.1)
218 ( 3.2)
216 ( 2.1)
Nation
30 ( 3.0)
33 ( 2.4)
27 ( 2.4)
20 ( 2.1)
249 ( 6.0)
252 ( 2.7)
229 ( 4.2)
237 ( 3.4)
GENDER
Male
State
22 ( 1.6)
27 ( 1.9)
23 ( 1.8)
27 ( 1.7)
225 ( 2.8)
225 ( 2.6)
220 ( 3.0)
222 ( 3.0)
Nation
28 ( 1.3)
26 ( 1.1)
17 ( 1.5)
15 ( 0.6)
264 ( 2.1)
260 ( 1.5)
248 ( 2.8)
246 ( 2.3)
Female
State
26 ( 2.0)
25 ( 1.8)
29 ( 1.4)
38 ( 1.8)>
220 ( 2.6)
226 ( 2.1)
217 ( 1.7)
219 ( 1.7)
Nation
28 ( 1.6)
26 ( 1.0)
15 ( 1.2)
11 ( 0.7)
259 ( 1.9)
261 ( 1.4)
240 ( 2.4)
237 ( 2.1)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be
said with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard
errors of the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural
Appendix for details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at
about the 95 percent confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value
for 1990 at about the 95 percent confidence level.
! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated statistic. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62
students).
174
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
181
Vugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mal Stift Auessment
Nilip
1
TABLE A34
Eighth-Grade Students' Re oats ora the Nuambew
of Days of School Missed
None
One or Two Days
Throo Dap or Nom
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Porcontago of Studonto and
Avovago Math Progicloncy
State
50 ( 1.5)
46 ( 1.3)
29 ( 1.2)
30 ( 1.1)
22 ( 1.2)
24 ( 0.9)
223 ( 1.2)
225 ( 1.4)
218 ( 1.7)
223 ( 1.8)
214 ( 1.9)
218 ( 1.9)
Nation
45 ( 1.1)
42 ( 1.0)
32 ( 0.9)
34 ( 0.9)
23 ( 1.1)
23 ( 0.6)
265 ( 1.7)
271 ( 1.1)>
267 ( 1.5)
268 ( 1.1)
250 ( 1.8)
257 ( 1.4)>
RACE/
ETHNICITY
Black
State
53 ( 1.5)
48 ( 1.4)<
28 ( 1.2)
29 ( 1.4)
19 ( 1.2)
23 ( 1.1)
224 ( 1.4)
227 ( 1.5)
220 ( 1.6)
225 ( 2.0)
217 ( 2.5)
219 ( 2.0)
Nation
55 ( 3.1)
45 ( 1.9)<
21 ( 1.8)
32 ( 1.5)>
23 ( 2.5)
23 ( 1.4)
241 ( 3.2)
241 ( 1.6)
242 ( 4.4)
237 ( 2.2)
225 ( 3.7)
229 ( 2.4)
Hispanic
State
37 ( 2.8)
42 ( 2.8)
32 ( 2.8)
31 ( 2.9)
31 ( 2.8)
27 ( 2.2)
213 ( 2.8)
213 ( 3.4)
209 ( 3.6)
217 ( 2.7)
207 ( 2.9)
214 ( 3.7)
Nation
41 ( 3.3)
35 ( 2.2)
32 ( 2.2)
33 ( 1.8)
27 ( 2.6)
31 ( 2.2)
244 ( 4.0)
251 ( 2.5)
250 ( 4.0)
247 ( 2.7)
234 ( 3.5)
236 ( 2.4)
TYPE OF
COMMUNITY
Extreme rural
State
45 ( 3.3)
44 ( 4.5)
27 ( 2.6)
32 ( 3.5)
28 ( 3.4)
24 ( 2.8)
210 ( 2.2)
217 ( 2.3)
211 ( 4.6)
219 ( 4.5)
208 ( 3.4)
...
Nation
43 ( 4.4)1
48 ( 2.2)!
32 ( 4.2)!
32 ( 1.9)!
25 ( 3.9)!
20 ( 2.2)!
257 ( 4.0)1
273 ( 4.8)1
265 ( 6.4)!
266 ( 5.0)!
*.* (**..)
256 ( 5.9)!
Other
State
51 ( 1.6)
44 ( 1.5)<
29 ( 1.3)
30 ( 1.5)
20 ( 1.3)
26 ( 1.3)>
225 ( 1.4)
223 ( 1.7)
219 ( 1.8)
218 ( 2.4)
216 ( 2.3)
215 ( 2.2)
Nation
45 ( 1.3)
42 ( 1.3)
32 ( 1.1)
35 ( 1.1)
23 ( 1.1)
23 ( 0.8)
265 ( 2.2)
271 ( 1.4)
266 ( 1.9)
270 ( 1.4)
251 ( 2.2)
260 ( 1.3)>
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
182
(continued on next page
175
Vugin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Thal State Assessment
TABLE A34
Eighth-Grade Students' Reports on the Number
(continued)
of Days of School Missed
None
One or Two Days
Three Days or More
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
50 ( 1.5)
46 ( 1.3)
29 ( 1.2)
30 ( 1.1)
22 ( 1.2)
24 ( 0.9)
223 ( 1.2)
225 ( 1.4)
218 ( 1.7)
223 ( 1.8)
214 ( 1.9)
218 ( 1.9)
Nation
45 ( 1.1)
42 ( 1.0)
32 ( 0.9)
34 ( 0.9)
23 ( 1.1)
23 ( 0.6)
265 ( 1.7)
271 ( 1.1)>
267 ( 1.5)
268 ( 1.1)
250 ( 1.8)
257 ( 1.4)>
PARENTS'
EDUCATION
College grad.
State
50 ( 3.4)
51 ( 2.5)
31 ( 3.1)
29 ( 2.1)
19 ( 3.0)
20 ( 2.4)
223 ( 2.4)
225 ( 2.9)
221 ( 2.7)
229 ( 3.5)
*** (**.*)
222 ( 3.6)
Nation
51 ( 1.6)
45 ( 1.2)
33 ( 1.2)
34 ( 1.2)
16 ( 1.3)
20 ( 0.9)
276 ( 2.1)
281 ( 1.9)
277 ( 1.8)
280 ( 1.5)
266 ( 3.7)
271 ( 2.2)
Some college
State
57 ( 4.1)
50 ( 4.1)
30 ( 3.8)
24 ( 3.7)
14 ( 3.2)
27 ( 3.8)
235 ( 4.0)
237 ( 3.3)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
40 ( 1.8)
42 ( a0)
37 ( 1.6)
36 ( 1.8)
23 ( 1.6)
21 ( 1.5)
271 ( 2.9)
273 ( 1.8)
271 ( 2.8)
272 ( 2.0)
252 ( 3.1)
260 ( 3.0)
HS graduate
State
47 ( 3.1)
43 ( 2.6)
28 ( 2.0)
34 ( 2.4)
25 ( 2.5)
23 ( 1.8)
224 ( 2.0)
226 ( 2.7)
220 ( 2.8)
223 ( 2.8)
215 ( 3.4)
217 ( 3.7)
Nation
43 ( 2.1)
41 ( 1.3)
31 ( 1.9)
35 ( 1.5)
27 ( 1.9)
24 ( 1.1)
255 ( 2.4)
261 ( 2.0)
257 ( 2.8)
258 ( 1.9)
251 ( 2.0)
248 ( 2.0)
HS non-grad.
State
40 ( 3.4)
37 ( 3.5)
30 ( 2.8)
31 ( 3.5)
31 ( 3.1)
32 ( 3.1)
213 ( 3.7)
222 ( 3.9)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
***
Nation
36 ( 3.2)
34 ( 2.0)
26 ( 3.1)
34 ( 2.4)
38 ( 3.5)
32 ( 2.3)
244 ( 3.2)
250 ( 2.9)
249 ( 3.6)
249 ( 3.7)
235 ( 2.9)
245 ( 3.5)
Don't know
State
55 ( 3.6)
51 ( 2.6)
28 ( 2.5)
28 ( 2.3)
17 ( 2.6)
22 ( 2.3)
220 ( 2.4)
220 ( 2.3)
215 ( 3.3)
218 ( 3.1)
*** (**.*)
212 ( 2.8)
Nation
43 ( 3.1)
41 ( 2.5)
26 ( 2.9)
29 ( 2.6)
31 ( 3.2)
30 ( 2.8)
245 ( 3.7)
258 ( 2.4)
248 ( 5.9)
252 ( 3.6)
229 ( 4.6)
242 ( 2.9)
GENDER
Male
State
52 ( 1.9)
47 ( 1.7)
27 ( 2.2)
30 ( 1.4)
21 ( 1.8)
23 ( 1.3)
224 ( 1.6)
225 ( 2.1)
220 ( 2.6)
222 ( 2.4)
218 ( 2.9)
219 ( 2.8)
Nation
47 ( 1.6)
45 ( 1.1)
31 ( 1.4)
33 ( 0.9)
22 ( 1.4)
22 ( 0.8)
266 ( 1.7)
271 ( 1.3)
268 ( 2.2)
267 ( 1.6)
249 ( 2.3)
256 ( 2.0)
Female
State
47 ( 1.9)
46 ( 1.8)
31 ( 1.3)
30 ( 1.7)
22 ( 1.5)
25 ( 1.5)
221 ( 1.7)
224 ( 1.8)
216 ( 2.8)
225 ( 2.7)
210 ( 2.4)
217 ( 2.4)
Nation
43 ( 1.4)
39 ( 1.3)
32 ( 1.1)
35 ( 1.2)
25 ( 1.3)
25 ( 0.8)
264 ( 2.4)
271 ( 1.5)
265 ( 1.8)
270 ( 1.2)
250 ( 2.0)
257 ( 1.8)>
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said
with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors of
the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for
details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent
confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the
95 percent confidence level.
! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of the variability of
this estimated statistic. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
176
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
183
Virgin Islands
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
1992
Mal State Assessment
TABLE A35
Students' Positive Perceptions and Attitudes
Toward Mathematics
Strongly Agree
Agree
Undecided, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
37 ( 1.4)
42 ( 1.5)>
47 ( 1.2)
44 ( 1.3)
16 ( 0.9)
14 ( 0.9)
227 ( 1.5)
228 ( 1.3)
216 ( 1.1)
219 ( 1.6)
208 ( 1.9)
211 ( 2.4)
Nation
27 ( 1.3)
32 ( 0.8)>
49 ( 1.0)
48 ( 0.8)
24 ( 1.2)
20 ( 0.6)<
272 ( 2.0)
276 ( 1.2)
263 ( 1.7)
266 ( 1.0)
252 ( 2.0)
255 ( 1.6)
FACE/
ETHNICITY
Black
State
37 ( 1.6)
43 ( 1.5)>
48 ( 1.4)
45 ( 1.6)
15 ( 0.9)
12 ( 1.0)
229 ( 1.6)
230 ( 1.7)
218 ( 1.5)
222 ( 1.6)
212 ( 1.9)
213 ( 3.3)
Nation
32 ( 2.5)
36 ( 1.7)
52 ( 2.3)
45 ( 2.0)
16 ( 1.9)
18 ( 1.5)
249 ( 4.5)
245 ( 2.2)
234 ( 3.7)
236 ( 1.9)
229 ( 3.7)
223 ( 3.2)
Hispanic
State
38 ( 2.8)
41 ( 3.6)
44 ( 3.0)
40 ( 3.0)
18 ( 2.6)
18 ( 2.4)
219 ( 2.4)
221 ( 2.9)
206 ( 3.0)
210 ( 3.2)
*** (**.*)
***
Nation
24 ( 2.5)
28 ( 1.4)
48 ( 2.6)
49 ( 2.0)
28 ( 2.1)
23 ( 1.8)
257 ( 5.5)
260 ( 2.1)
244 ( 2.5)
244 ( 1.7)
235 ( 3.5)
231 ( 2.7)
TYPE OF
COMMUNITY
Extreme rural
State
34 ( 3.0)
43 ( 3.9)
49 ( 2.4)
44 ( 3.9)
17 ( 3.0)
13 ( 2.4)
211 ( 2.6)
225 ( 3.6)>
209 ( 2.5)
210 ( 2.4)
Nation
34 ( 2.8)1
32 ( 3.4)1
49 ( 2.2)1
46 ( 2.7)1
17 ( 1.4)1
22 ( 1.8)1
272 ( 4.3)1
277 ( 6.7)1
252 ( 3.8)1
267 ( 4.7)1
*** (**.*)
253 ( 4.1)!
Other
State
37 ( 1.6)
43 ( 1.9)
47 ( 1.3)
43 ( 1.7)
16 ( 0.9)
14 ( 1.2)
231 ( 1.7)
226 ( 1.9)
218 ( 1.2)
215 ( 2.2)
210 ( 1.5)
206 ( 2.1)
Nation
27 ( 1.4)
32 ( 1.1)>
48 ( 1.2)
48 ( 0.9)
25 ( 1.4)
20 ( 0.7)<
271 ( 2.6)
276 ( 1.4)
263 ( 2.2)
267 ( 1.2)
251 ( 2.0)
258 ( 1.9)
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
184
(continued on next page
177
Vugin Islands
THE NATION'S
RrvORT
CARD
2.952
WW1 State Assessment
TABLE A35
(continued)
Students' Positive Perceptions and Attitudes
Toward Mathematics
Strong! Agree
Agree
Undecided, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
1990
Grade 8
1992
Grade 8
TOTAL
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
Percentage of Students and
Average Math Proficiency
State
37 ( 1.4)
42 ( 1.5)>
47 ( 1.2)
44 ( 1.3)
16 ( 0.9)
14 ( 0.9)
227 ( 1.5)
228 ( 1.3)
216 ( 1.1)
219 ( 1.6)
208 ( 1.9)
211 ( 2.4)
Nation
27 ( 1.3)
32 ( 0.8)>
49 ( 1.0)
48 ( 0.8)
24 ( 1.2)
20 ( 0.6)<
272 ( 2.0)
276 ( 1.2)
263 ( 1.7)
266 ( 1.0)
252 ( 2.0)
255 ( 1.6)
PARENTS'
EDUCATION
College grad.
State
42 ( 3.4)
44 ( 2.9)
46 ( 3.4)
42 ( 2.8)
12 ( 1.5)
14 ( 1.8)
226 ( 2.8)
228 ( 2.7)
217 ( 3.0)
221 ( 3.0)
***
*** (**.*)
Nation
30 ( 2.3)
35 ( 1.2)
51 ( 1.6)
47 ( 1.1)
19 ( 1.8)
18 ( 0.8)
279 ( 2.7)
286 ( 1.7)
275 ( 2.2)
277 ( 1.7)
267 ( 2.9)
269 ( 2.4)
Some college
State
43 ( 3.5)
41 ( 4.4)
41 ( 4.7)
53 ( 4.5)
16 ( 2.8)
6 ( 1.4)<
*** (**.*)
240 ( 4.1)
*** (**.*)
227 ( 3.0)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
28 ( 2.5)
32 ( 1.6)
47 ( 2.4)
50 ( 1.8)
25 ( 1.8)
19 ( 1.6)
276 ( 3.5)
278 ( 2.3)
267 ( 2.3)
269 ( 2.0)
258 ( 2.9)
260 ( 3.0)
CIS graduate
State
35 ( 2.4)
42 ( 2.9)
51 ( 2.6)
45 ( 2.5)
15 ( 1.4)
13 ( 1.8)
228 ( 2.7)
227 ( 2.5)
217 ( 2.3)
221 ( 2.8)
*** (*5.5)
*** (**.*)
Nation
27 ( 2.1)
31 ( 1.3)
47 ( 2.3)
48 ( 1.5)
26 ( 2.0)
21 ( 0.9)
263 ( 3.1)
264 ( 2.0)
255 ( 2.4)
255 ( 1.7)
246 ( 2.1)
247 ( 2.5)
CIS non-grad.
State
33 ( 3.7)
45 ( 3.3)
47 ( 3.9)
42 ( 3.2)
19 ( 3.6)
13 ( 2.5)
218 ( 5.2)
226 ( 3.8)
210 ( 3.8)
215 ( 3.7)
*** (**.*)
*** (**.*)
Nation
20 ( 2.6)
28 ( 2.5)
50 ( 3.3)
46 ( 2.4)
30 ( 3.6)
26 ( 2.0)
*** (**.*)
257 ( 3.6)
241 ( 2.7)
250 ( 2.3)
237 ( 4.6)
237 ( 2.6)
Don't know
State
34 ( 2.4)
40 ( 2.9)
47 ( 2.8)
42 ( 2.9)
19 ( 2.2)
18 ( 2.0)
227 ( 3.8)
227 ( 2.3)
214 ( 2.1)
215 ( 3.0)
***
*** (**.*)
Nation
18 ( 2.5)
26 ( 2.2)
47 ( 3.6)
48 ( 2.2)
36 ( 4.2)
26 ( 1.6)
*** (**.*)
263 ( 3.1)
241 ( 3.2)
251 ( 2.1)
233 ( 4.9)
242 ( 3.6)
GENDER
Male
State
36 ( 2.0)
42 ( 2.3)
48 ( 1.7)
44 ( 1.8)
17 ( 1.5)
14 ( 1.2)
229 ( 2.2)
228 ( 1.8)
217 ( 1.7)
218 ( 2.5)
213 ( 3.1)
214 ( 3.3)
Nation
28 ( 1.5)
32 ( 1.2)
48 ( 1.2)
48 ( 0.9)
24 ( 1.4)
21 ( 0.9)
273 ( 2.5)
276 ( 1.6)
263 ( 2.0)
265 ( 1.3)
251 ( 2.9)
255 ( 2.0)
Female
State
38 ( 1.7)
43 ( 1.7)
47 ( 1.9)
44 ( 1.8)
15 ( 1.5)
13 ( 1.3)
225 ( 2.3)
229 ( 1.8)
214 ( 1.4)
220 ( 1.9)>
204 ( 2.9)
208 ( 3.6)
Nation
26 ( 1.7)
32 ( 1.0)>
50 ( 1.7)
47 ( 1.1)
25 ( 1.9)
20 ( 0.7)
270 ( 2.4)
275 ( 1.6)
262 ( 2.0)
266 ( 1.3)
252 ( 1.9)
256 ( 2.5)
The NAEP mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said
with about 95 percent confidence that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within I 2 standard errors of
the estimate for the sample. In comparing two estimates, one must use the standard error of the difference (see Procedural Appendix for
details). If the notation > appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was siviificantly higher than the value for 1990 at about the 95 percent
confidence level. If the notation < appears, it signifies that the value for 1992 was significantly lower than the value for 1990 at about the
95 percent confidence level. A "perception index" of 1 represents very imsitive perceptions toward mathematics and a "perception index" of
3 represents uncertain or negative perceptions toward mathematics.
! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow
accurate determination of the variability of this estimated statistic.
Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than
62 students).
178
THE 1992 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
165
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A very special thank you is due to the many individuals who provided invaluable assistance in the production of
this report. Literally, a cast of thousands was involved in the development, administration, scoring, analysis,
writing, reviewing, and reporting of the 1992 Trial State Assessment in mathematics. These individuals
contributed their expertise, energy, and creativity to help make NAEP's mathematics assessment a success. Most
importantly, NAEP is grateful to the students and school staff who participated in the Trial State Assessment.
The design, development, analysis, and reporting of the 1992 Trial State Assessment was a continuation of the
collaborative effort that began in 1989 among staff from State Education Agencies, the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES), Educational Testing Service (ETS), Westat, and National Computer Systems (NCS).
The Trial State Assessment Program continued to benefit from the contributions of hundreds of individuals at the
state and local levels
Governors, Chief State School Officers, State and District Test Directors, State
Coordinators, and district administrators -- who provided their wisdom, experience, and hard work.
The 1990 and 1992 Trial State Assessments were funded through NCES by the Office of Educational Research
and Improvement of the U.S. Department of Education. Emerson Elliott, NCES Commissioner, provided
consistent support and guidance. The staff -- particularly Gary Phillips, Eugene Owen, Stephen Gorman, and
Maureen Treacy -- worked closely and collegially with ETS, Westat, and NCS staff and played a crucial role in
all aspects of the program.
The members of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) and the NAGB staff provided continual
advice and guidance. Their contractor, American College Testing (ACT), provided analytic functions and
worked with various panels in setting the achievement levels.
The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) deserves special recognition for its contributions to the
program and its management of the National Assessment Planning Project, which resulted in the mathematics
framework and objectives for the assessment.
NAEP also owes a debt of gratitude to the Mathematics Item Development and Mathematics Scale Anchoring
Panels. These people -- from school districts, colleges and universities, and State Education Agencies -- worked
with ETS staff to develop the assessment and provide a framework for interpreting the results.
Under the NAEP contract to ETS, Archie Lapointe served as the executive director and Ina Mullis as the project
director. John Barone managed the data analysis activities; Jules Goodison, the operational aspects; Chancey
Jones and Jeff Haberstroh, test development; Kent Ashworth, information services; and John Olson, technical
assistance and state services. Statistical and psychometric activities were led by John Mazzeo, with consultation
from Eugene Johnson. Sampling and data collection activities were carried out by Westat under the supervision
of Renee Slobasky, Keith Rust, and Nancy Caldwell. Printing, distribution, scoring, and processing of the
materials were conducted by NCS, under the direction of John O'Neill and Judy Moyer.
The large number of states and territories participating in the Trial State Assessment provided many challenges,
including the need to develop different reports, customized for each of the 44 participating jurisdictions based on
its characteristics and the results of its assessed students. To meet this challenge, a computerized report
generation system was employed that created text, tables, and graphics for each jurisdiction's unique report. This
system was designed to take advantage of mainframe computer speed and accuracy for the data computations,
interfaced with high-quality text formatting and graphical output procedures. Jennifer Nelson created the system
and led the computer-based development of the report with the able assistance of Laura Jerry. John Mazzeo
oversaw the analyses for the reports. John Ferris, David Freund, Bruce Kaplan, Edward Ku lick, Phillip Leung,
Spencer Swinton, and Hua Chang collaborated to generate the data, conduct the analyses, and check the results.
They were assisted by Drew Bowker, Fai Fong, Craig Pizzuti, and Ira Sample. Al Rogers developed and
generated the maps.
Stephen Koffler and John Olson wrote the text for the report. Kent Ashworth and Rebekkah Melchor-Logan
were responsible for coordinating the cover design and final production of the reports. Finally, a special thanks
is also due to the numerous reviewers, internal and external, who suggested improvements to the reports, and the
individuals who thoroughly checked the data, text, tables, and maps.
186
D
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
National Library of Education (NLE)
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
NOTICE
REPRODUCTION BASIS
®
IC
This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release
(Blanket) form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all
or classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,
does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.
urvThis document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission to
reproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, may
be reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form
(either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").
EFF-089 (9/97)