DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 330 576
SE 052 086
TITLE
The State of Mathematics Achievement in Oklahoma:
The
Trial State Assessment at Grade Eight.
INSTITUTION
Educational Testing Service, Princeton, N.J.;
SPONS AGENCY
National Assessment
Princeton, NJ.
National Center for
Washington, DC.
REPORT NO
ETS-21-ST-02; ISBN-0-88685-14-9
PUB DATE
Jun 91
NOTE
146p.; The entire Report consists of a composite
report, an executive summary, and 40 separate reports
for 37 states, DC, Guam, and the Virgin Islands,
respectively; see SE 052 055-096.
AVAILABLE FROM
Individual state reports are available directly from
the assessment division of the appropriate State
Department of Education.
PUB TYPE
Statistical Data (110) -- Reports
-
Research/Technical (143)
of Educational Progress,
Education Statistics (ED),
EDRS PRICE
DESCRIPTORS
MF01/PC06 Plus Postage.
Academic Achievement; Calculators; *Educational
Assessment; Family Environment; *Grade 8; Homework;
Junior High Schools; *Mathematics Achievement;
Mathematics Instruction; Mathematics Skills;
Mathematics Tests; National Programs; Problem
Solving; Publ,
chools; *State Programs; Student
Attitudes; Teacher Attitudes; Teacher Qualifications;
Television Viewing
IDENTIFIERS
National Assessment of Educational Progress;
*Numeracy; *Oklahoma; State Mathematics Assessments;
Trial State Assessment (NAEP)
ABSTRACT
In 1990, the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) included a Trial State Assessment (TSA); for the
first time in the NAEP's history, voluntary state-by-state
assessments (37 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the
Virgin Islands) were made. The sample was designed to represent the
8th grade public school population in a state or territory. The 1990
TSA covered five mathematics content areas (numbers and operations;
measurement; geometry; data analysis, statistics, and probability;
and algebra and functions). In Oklahoma, 2,222 students in 108 public
schools were assessed. This report describes the mathematics
proficiency of Oklahoma eighth-graders, compares their overall
performance to students in the West region of the United States and
the nation (using data from the NAEP national assessments), presents
the average proficiency separately for the five content areas, and
summarizes the performance of subpopulations (race/ethnicity, type of
community, parents' educational level, and gender).
To provide a
context for the assessment data,
participating students, their
mathematics teachers, and principals cowpleted questionnaires which
focused on: instructional content (curriculum coverage, amount of
homework); delivery of math
instruction (availability of resources,
type); use of calculators; educational
background of teachers; and
conditions facilitating math learning (e.g., hours of television
watched, absenteeism). On the NAEP math scale, Oklahoma students had
an average proficiency of 263 compared to 261 nationwide. Many tewer
students (Oklahoma-10%; U.S.-12%) appear to have acquired reasoning
and problem solving skills. (JJK/CRW)
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS
The STATE If
M th
in OKLAHOMA
The Tidal State Assessment at Grade Fight
*
MT COPY AVAILABLE
U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
r
t dut'als.)1,0 KtMeA,CY,0,,C1 (rncoo.rmens
E
IONAL 1,11 SOURCE S INF ORMAT1ON
CI-Nff R1ERICI
ciOk ornPri hAS
Veen erp(oduremi
ine person ot organqat,on
r hamjes ha.r twen made
,epwcIL -1,on Qyaht,
t.'odsi%
ve*
ot-vnnoS Stated
thS AMU
mtsoi Cto not
totAar,iv rpropsem ottc,al
gi vocItt
pe
Prepared by Educational TestMg Service under Contract with the National Center for Education Statistics
Office of Educational Research anC Improvement
U.S. Department of Education
What is The Nation's Report Card?
THE NATION'S REPORT CARD, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEN, is the only nationally representative and
continuing assessment of what America's students know arid 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. stste, and local levels, NAEP is an integral pan of ournation's evaluation of the
condition and progress of education. Only information related to academic achievement is collected under this program. NAEP guaranaNs
the privacy of individual students and their families.
NAEP is a congressionally mandated projeet 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.
Ir 1988. Congress created the National Assessment Governing Hoed (NAGB) to formulate policy guidelines for NAEP. The board is
responsible for selecting the subject arras to be assessed, which may include adding to those specified by Congress: identifying appropri;ae
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 frirm 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
Richard A. Boyd. Chairman
Executive Director
Martha Holden Jennings Foundation
Cleveland, Ohio
Phyllis Williamson Aldrich
Curriculum Coordinator
Saratoga-Warren B.O.C.E.S.
Saratoga Springs, New York
France Alexander
Associate Superintendent
California Department of Education
Sacramento, California
David P. Battini
High School History Teacher
Cairo-Durham High School
Cairo, New York
Parris C. Battle
Teacher
Horace Mann Elementary School
Miami, Florida
Mary R. Blanton
Attorney
Cromwell. Porter, Blanton & Blanton
Salisbury. North Carolina
Boyd W. Boeldje
Attorney
Gaa.ss, Klyn. & Bochly
Pella. Iowa
Linda IL Bryant
Teacher
Greenway Middle School Teacher Center
Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania
Honorable Michael N. Castle
Governor of Delaware
Carvel State Office Building
Wilmington, Delaware
Honorable Naomi K. Cohen
State of Connecticut
House of Representatives
Legislative Office Building
Hartford, Connecticut
Chester K. Finn. Jr.
Professor of Education and Public Policy
Vanderbilt University
Washington. D.C.
Michael S Glode
Wyoming State Board of Education
Saratoga, Wyoming
Christine Johnson
Principal
Abraham Lincoln High School
Denver, Colorado
John lindley
Principal
South Colby Elementary Sehool
Port Orchard. Washington
Carl J. Moser
Director of Schools
The Lutheran Church
Missouri Synod
International ( enter
St. Louis, Missouri
Mark D. Musick
President
Southern Regional Education Board
Atlanta, Georgia
Honorable Carolyn Pollan
Arkansas House of Representa is ..7s
Fort Smith. Arkansas
Matthew W. Prophet, Jr.
Superintendent
Portland Oregon School District
Portland, Oregon
Honorable William T. Randall
Commissioner of Education
State Department of Edueation
Denver, Colorado
Dorothy K. Rich
President
Home and School Institute
Special Projects Office
Washington, D.C.
Honorabie Richard W. Riley
Attorney
Nelson, Mullins, Riley and
Scartxirough
Columbia, South Carolina
Thomus Topuzes
Attorney
Law Offices of Frank Rogozicnski
Coronado. California
Herbert J. Walberg
Professor of Education
University of Illinois
Chicago. Illinois
Assistant Secretary for
Educational Research and
Improvement (Ex-Officio)
U.S. Department of Education
Washington, D.C.
Roy Truby
Executive Director. NAGB
Washington. DV.
3
NATIONAL CENTER FOR
EDUCATION STATISTICS
The STATE of
Mathematics
Achievement
hi OKLAHOMA
The Trial State Assessment At Grade Eight
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
Report No.. 21-ST-02
June 1991
Prepared by Educational Testing Service under Contract with the National Center for Edtiacation Statistics
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
U.S. Department of Education
U.S. Department of Education
Lamar Alexander
Secreiary
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
Bnmo
Manno
Acting Assistant Secretary
National Center for Education Statistics
Emerson J. Elliott
Acting Commissioner
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Copies of the 1990 NAEP Trial State Assessment's individual State reports are available directly from the participating
States. For ordering information, please contact the assessment division of your State Department of Education. For
ordering information on the composite report of results for the Nation and all State participants, or for single copies
of the Executive Summary while supplies last, write:
Education Information Branch
Office of Educational Reseach 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: 91-61478
ISBN: 0-88685.14-9
The work upon which this publication is based was performed for the National Center for Educatim Statistics,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement, by Educational Testing Service.
Educational Testing Service is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer
Educatiooul Testing Service, ETS, and
are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service.
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
7
Overview of the 1990 Trial State Assessment
8
This Report
9
Guideline; for Analysis
12
Profile of Oklahoma
14
Eighth-Grade School and Student Characteristics
14
Schools and Students Assessed
15
PA RT ON E
How Proficient in Mathematics Are Eighth-Grade Students
in Oklahoma Public Sdlools?
17
Chapter 1.
Students' Mathematics Performance
18
lzvels of Mathematics Proficiency
19
Content Area Performance
19
Cinepter 2.
Mathematics Performance by Subpopulations
24
Race/Ethnicity
24
Type of Community
27
Parents' Education Level
29
Gender
11
Content Area Performance
33
6
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
in
PART TWO
Finding a Context for Understanding
Students' Mathematics Proficiency.
37
Chapter 3.
What Are Students Taught in Mathematics'
39
Cuniculum Coverage
41
Mathematics Homework
42
Instructional Emphasis
45
Summary
48
Chapter 4.
How Is Mathematics Instruction Delivered'
49
Availability of Resources
49
Peterns in Classroom Instruction
51
Collaborating in Small Groups
54
Using Mathematical Objects
55
Materials for Mathematics Instruction
56
Summary
59
Chapter 5.
How Are Calculators Used"
60
The Availability of Calculators
62
The Use of Calculators
63
When To Use a Calculator
64
Summary
66
Chapter 6.
Who Is Teaching Eighth-Grade. Mathematics"
67
Educational Background
68
Summary
71
Chapter 7.
The Conditions Beyond School that Facilitate Mathematics Learning and Teaching
73
Amount of Reading Materials in the Home
74
Hours of Television Watched per Day
75
Student Absenteeism
76
Students' Perceptions of Mathematics
78
Summary
79
PROCEDURAL APPENDIX
81
DATA APPENDIX
97
7
iv
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 1988, Congress passed new legislation for the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP), which included -- for the first time in the project's history -- a provision
authorizing voluntary state-by-state assessments on a trial basis, in addition to continuing
its primary mission, the national assessments th. NAEP has conducted since its inception.
As a result of the legislation, the 1990 N AD" program included a Trial State Assessment
Prlgram in eighth-grade mathematics. Nalional assessments in mathematics, reading,
writing, and science were conducted simultaneously in 1990 at grades four, eight, and
twelve.
For the Trial State Assessment, eighth-grade public-school students were assessed in each
of 37 states, the District of Colurn'oia, and two territories in February 1990, The sample
was carefully designed to represent the eighth-grade public-school population in a state or
territory. Within each selected school, students were randomly chosen to participate in the
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 being conducted uniformly. The results
of the monitoring indicated a high degree of quality and uniformity across sessions.
THE i990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMEN I
Oklahoma
^1.111=1=1111
In Oklahoma, 108 public schools participated in the assessment. The weighted school
participation rate was 99 percent, which means that all of the eighth-grade students in this
sample of schools were representative of 99 percent of the eighth-grade public-school
students in Oklahoma.
In each school, a random sample of students was selected to participate in the assessment.
As estimated by the sample, 1 percent of the eighth-grade public-school population was
classified as Limited English Proficient (LEP), while 8 percent 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.
Schools were permitted to excludc certain students from the assessment. To be excluded
from the assessment, a student had to be categorized as Limited English Proficient or had
to have an Individualized Education Plan and (in either case) be judged incapable of
participating in the assessment. The students who were excluded from the assessment
because they were categorized as LEP or had an IEP represented 0 percent and 5 percent
of the population, respectively. In total, 2,222 eighth-grade Oklahoma public-school
students were assessed. The. weighted student participation rate was 80 percent. This
means that the sample of students who took part in the assessment was representative of
80 percent of the eligible eighth-gade public-school student population in Oklahoma.
Students' Mathen2atics Performance
The average proficiency of eighth-grade public-school students from Oklahoma on the
NAEP mathematics scale is 263. This proficiency is no different from that of students
across the nation (261).
Average proficiency on the NAFP scale provides a global view of eighth graders'
mathematics achievement; however, it does not reveal specifically what tlw students know
and can do in the subject. To describe the nature of students' proficiency in greater detail,
NAEP used the results from the 1990 national assessments of fourth-, eighth-, and
twelfth-grade students to defme the skills, knowledge, and understandings that characterize
four levels of mathematics performance -- levels 200, 250, 300, and 350 -- on the NAEP
scale.
2
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
In Oklahoma, 99 percent of the eighth graders, compared to 97 percent in the nation,
appear to have acquired skills involving simple additive reasoning and problem solving with
whole numbexs (level 200). However, many fewer students in Oklahoma (10 percent) and
12 percent in the nation appear to have acquired reasoning and problem-solving skills
involving fractions, decimals, percents, elementary geometric properties, and simple
algebraic manipulations (level 300).
The Trial State Assessment included five content areas -- Numbers and Operations;
Measurement; Geometty; Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability; and Algebra and
Functions. Students in Oklahoma performed comparably to students in the nation in all
of these five content areas.
Subpopulation Performance
In addition to the overall results, the 1990 Trial State Assessment permits reporting on the
performance of various subpopulations of the Oklahoma eighth-grade student population
defined by race/ethnicity, type of community, parents' education level, and gender. In
Oklahoma:
White students had higher average mathematics proficiency than did Black,
Hispanic, or American Indian students.
Further, a greater percentage of White students than Black, Hispanic, ur
American Indian students attained level 300.
The results by type of community indicate that the average mathematics
performance of the Oklahoma students attending schools in advantaged
urban areas was higher than that of students attending schools in
disadvantaged urban areas, extreme rural areas, or areas classified as
"other".
In Oklahoma, the
average mathematics proficiency of eighth-grade
public-school students having at least one parent who giradualed from
college was approximately 23 points higher than that of students whose
parents did not gjaduate from high scho,)1.
The results by gender show that eighth-grade males in Oklahoma had a
higher average mathematics proficiency than did eighth-grade females in
Oklahoma.
In addition, there was no difference between the percentages
of males and females in Oklahoma who attained level 300. Compared to
the national results, females in Oklahoma performed no differently from
females across the country; males in Oklahoma performed no differently
from males across the country.
0
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL. Si ATE ASSESSMEN1
3
Oklahoma
A Context for Understanding Students' Mathematics Proficiency
Information on students' mathematics proficiency is valuable in and of itself, but it
becomes more useful Tor improving instruction and setting policy when supplemented with
contextual information about schools, teachers, and students.
To gather such information, the students participating in the 1990 Trial State Assessment,
their mathematics teachers, and the principals or other administrators in their schools were
asked to complete questionnaires on policies, instruction, and programs. Taken together,
the student, teacher, and school data help to desaibe some of the current practices and
emphases in mathematics education, illuminate some of the factors that appear to be
related to eighth-wade public-school students' proficiency in the subject, and provide an
educational context for understanding information about student achievement.
Some of the salient results for the public-school students in Oklahoma are as follows:
More than half of the students in Oklahoma (59 percent) were in schools
where mathematics was identified as a special priority. This is about the
same percentage as that for the nation (63 percent).
In Oklahoma, 64 percent of the students could take an algebra course in
eighth grade for high-school course placement or credit.
About the same percentage of students in Oklahoma were taking
eighth-grade mathematics (53 percent) as were taking a course in
pre-algebra or algebra (43 percent).
Across the nation, 62 percent were
taking eighth-grade mathematics and 34 percent were taking a course in
pre-algebra or algebra.
According to their teachers, the weatest percentage of eighth-grade students
in public schools in Oklahoma spent 30 minutes doi'ag mathematics
homework each day; acco ding to the students, most of them spent 30
minutes doing mathematics homework each day.
Across the nation,
teachers reported that the largest percentage of students spent either 15 or
30 minutes doing mathematics homework each day, while students
reported either 15 or 30 minutes daily.
Students whose teachers placed heavy instructional emphasis on Algebra
and Functions had higher proficiency in this content area than students
whose teachers placed little or no emphasis on Algebra and Functions.
Students whose teachers placed heavy instructional emphasis on Numbers
and Operations had lower proficiency in this content area than students
whose teachers placed little or no emphasis on Numbers and Operations.
1 1
4
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Okkhorna
In Oklahoma, 12 percent of the eighth-grade students had mathematics
teachers who reported getting all of the resources they needed, while
33 percent of the students were taught by teachers who got only some or
none of the resources they needed. Across the nation, these figures were
13 percent and 31 percent, respectively.
In Oklahoma, 31 percent of the students never used a calculator to work
problems in class, while 44 percent alinost always did.
In Oklahoma, 40 percent of the students were being taught by mathematics
teachers who reported having at least a master's or education specialist's
degree. This compares to 44 percent for students across the nation.
More than half of the students (69 percent) had teachers who had the
highest level of teaching certification available. This is similar to the figure
for the nation, where 66 percent of students Arae taught by teachers wh
were certified at the highest level available in their states.
Students in Oklahoma who had four types of reading materials (an
encyclopedia, newspapers, magazines, and more than 25 books) at home
showed higher mathematics proficiency than did students with zero to two
types of these materials. This is similar to the results for the nation, where
students who had all four types of materials showed higher mathematics
proficiency than did students who had zero to two types.
Relatively few of the eighth-grade public-school students in Oklahoma
(10 percent) watched one hour or less of television each day; 14 percent
watched six hours or more. Average mathematics proficiency was lowest
for students who spent six hours or more watching television each day.
9
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
5
Oklahoma
NE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
INTRODUCTION
As a result of legislation enacted in 1988, the 1990 National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) included a Trial State Assessment Program in eighth-grade mathematics.
he Trial State Assessment was conducted in February 1990 with the following
participants:
Alabama
Iowa
Ohio
Arizona
Kentucky
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Louisiana
Oregon
California
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Colorado
Michigan
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Minnesota
Texas
Delaware
Montana
Virginia
District of Columbia
Nebraska
West Virginia
Florida
New Hampshire
Wisconsin
Georgia
New Jersey
Wyoming
Hawaii
New Mexico
Idaho
New York
Illinois
North Carolina
Guam
Indiana
North Dakota
Virgin Islands
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
7
Oklahoma
This report describes the performance of the eighth-grade public-school students in
Oklahoma and consists of three sections:
This Introduction provides background information about the Trial State
Assessment and this report. ". also provides a profile of the eighth-grade
public-school students in Oklahoma.
Part One describes the mathematics performance of the eighth-grade
public-school students in Oklahoma, the West region, and the nation.
Part Two relates students' mathematics performance to
contextual
information about the mathematics policies and instruction in schools in
Oklahoma, the West region, and the nation.
Overview of the 1990 Trial State Assessment
In 1988, Congress passed new legislation for the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP), which included -- for the first time in the project's history -- a provision
authorizing voluntary state-by-state assessments on a trial basis, in addition to continuing
its primary mission, the national assessments that NAEP has conducted since its inception:
The National Assessment shall develop a trial mathematics assessment survey
instrument for the eighth grade and shall conduct a demonstration of tlw
instrument in 1990 in States which wish to participate, with the purpose of
determining whether such an assessment yields valid, reliable State representative
data.
(Section 406 (1)( 2 )(C)( i) of the General Education Provisions Act, as
amended by Pub. L. 100-297 (20 V.S.C. 1221e-1(0(2)(C)(0))
As a result of the legislation, the 1990 NAEP program included a Trial State Assessment
Program in eighth-grade mathematics. National assessments in mathematics, reading,
writing, and science were conducted simultaneously in 1990 at grades four, eight, and
twelve.
For the Trial State Assessment, eighth-grade public-school students were assessed in each
state or territory. The sample was carefully designed to represent the eighth-grade
public-school population in the state or territory. Within each selected school, students
were randomly chosen to participate in the progam. Local school district personnel
admifAistered 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
being conducted uniformly. The results of the monitoring indicated a high degree of quality
and uniformity across sessions.
8
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
The Trial State Assessment was based on a set of mathematics objectives newly 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 federal government arranged for
the National Science Foundatior .mnd the U.S. Department of Education to issue a special
grant to the Council of Chief State School Officers in mid-1987 to develop the objectives.
The development process included careful attention to the standards developed by the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,'
the formal mathematics objectives of
states and of a sampling of local districts, and the opinions of practitioners at the state and
local levels as to what content should be assessed.
There was an extensive review by mathematics educators, scholars, states' mathematics
supervisors, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), and the Assessment
Policy Committee (APC), a panel that advised on NAEP policy at that time. The
objectives were further refined by NAEP's Item Development Panel, reviewed by the Task
Force on State Comparisons, and resubmitted to NCES for peer review. Because the
objectives needed to be coordinated across all the grades for the national program, the final
objectives provided specifications for the 1990 mathematics assessment at the fourth,
eighth, and twelfth grades rather than solely for the Trial State Assessment in grade eight.
An overview of the mathematics objectives is provided in the Procedural Appendix.
This Report
This is a computer-generated report that describes the performance of eighth-gxade
public-school students in Oklahoma, in the West region, and for the nation. Results also
are provided for groups of students defined by shared characteristics -- race/ethnicity, type
of community, parents' education level, and gender. Defmitions of the subpopulations
referred to in this report are presented below. The results for Oklahoma are based only
on ,he students included in the Trial State Assessment Program. However, the results for
the nation and the region of the country are based on the nationally and regionally
representative samples of public-school students who were assessed in January or February
as part of the 1990 national NAEP program. Use of the regional and national results from
the 1990 national NAEP program was necessary because the voluntary nature of the Trial
State Assessment Program did not guarantee representative national or regional results,
since not every state participated in the program.
Nattonal Counztl of Te2chess of Mathemaucs, Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics
(Reston, VA: Nauonal Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989).
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
9
Oklahoma
RACE/ETHNICITY
Results are presented for students of different racial/ethnic groups based on the students'
self-identification of their race/ethnicity acccrding 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 computi ig
overall results for Oklahoma.
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 thme 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.
PARENTS' EDUCATION LEVEL
Students were asked to indicate the extent of schooling for each of their parents -- did not
finish high school, graduated high school, some education after high school, or graduated
college. The response indicating the higher level of education was selected for reporting.
6
10
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
GENDER
Results are reported separately for males and females.
REGION
The United States has been divided into four regions: Northeast, Southeast, Central, and
West. States included in each region are shown in Figure I. All 50 states and the District
of Columbia are listed, with the participants in the Trial State Assessment highlighted in
boldface type. Territories were not a-signed to a region. Further, the part of Virginia that
is included in the Washington, DC, metropolitan statistical area is included in the
Northeast region; the remainder of the state is included in the Southeast region. Because
most of the students are in the Southeast region, regional comparisons for Virginia will be
to the Southeast.
FIGURF 1
I Regions of the Country
ME NATION'S
REPORT 7irier
CARO
_
NORTHEAST
SOUTHEAST
CENTRAL
WEST
Connecticut
Alabama
Illinois
Alaska
Delaware
Arkansas
Indiana
Arizona
District of Columbia
Florida
Iowa
California
Maine
Georgia
Kansas
Colorado
Maryland
kantucky
Michigan
Hawaii
Massachusetts
Louisiana
Minnesota
Idaho
New Hampshire
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
New Jersey
North Carolina
Nebraska
Nevada
New York
South Carolina
North Dakota
Mow Mexico
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Ohio
Oklahoma
Rhode island
Virginia
South Dakota
Oregon
Vermont
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Texas
Virginia
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
ords,
I
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
11
Oklahoma
Guidelines for knalysis
This report describes and compares the mathematics proficiency of various subpopulations
of students -- 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 subpopulations and individual background questions. It does not
include an analysis of the relationships among combinations of these subpopulations or
background questions.
Because the proportions of students in these subpopulations and their average proficiency
are based on samples -- rather than the entire population of eighth 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 subpopulations are compared, it is
essential that the standard error be taken into account, rather than relying solely on
observed similarities or differences. Therefore, the comparisons discussed in this report are
based on statiatical 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 sigmlicant), the report describes the group means or proportions as being
different
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. 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 the value 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. When three or more groups are being compared, a
Bonferroni procedure is also used. The statistical tests and Bonferroni procedure are
discussed in greater detail in the Procedural Appendix.
7 8
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
It is also important to note that the confidence intervals pictured in the figures in Part One
of this report are approximate 95 percent confidence intervals about the mean of a
particular population of interest. Comparing such confidence intervals for two populations
is not equivalent to examining the 95 percent confidence interval for the difference between
the means of the populations. If the individual confidence intervals for two populations
do not overlap, it is true that there is a statistically significant difference between the
populations. However, if the confidence intervals overlap, it is not always true that there
is not a statistically significant difference between the populations.
Finally, in several places in this report, results (mean proficiencies and proportions) are
reported in the text for combined groups of students. For example, in the text, the
percentage of students in the combined group taking either algebra or pre-algebra is elven
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.
Hence, 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 e.
<
of the gyoups that
were combined. Similarly, if statistical tests were to be conducted based on the rounded
numbers in the tables, the results might not be consonant with the results of the statistical
tests that arc reported in the text (based on umounded numbers).
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
13
Oklahoma
Profile of Oklahoma
E1GHTH-GRADE SCHOOL AND STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Table 1 provides a profile of the demographic characteristics of the eighth-grade
public-school students in Oklahoma, the West region, and the nation. This profile is based
on data collected from the students and schools participating in the Trial State Assessment.
TABU, 1
I Profile of Oklahoma Eighth-Grade
I
Public-School Students
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS
1900 NAEP TRIAL. STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
West
Nation
DEMOGRAPHIC SUBGROUPS
Parcentege
Percentage
Percentage
RacelEthnicity
White
74 ( 1.8)
63 ( 1.9)
70 ( 0.5)
Black
11 ( 1.2)
7 ( 2.0)
16 ( 0.3)
Hispanic
5 (
0.7)
21 ( 1.5)
10 ( 0.4)
Asian
2 (
0.4)
4 (
1.3)
2 ( 0.5)
American Indian
9 (
1.0)
4 ( 2.3)
2 ( 0.7)
Type of Community
Advantaged urban
11 ( 2.9)
14 ( 8.5)
10 ( 3.3)
Disadvantaged urban
9 ( 2.9)
19 ( 7$)
10 ( 2.8)
Extreme rural
22 ( 3.5)
10 ( 3.8)
10 ( 3.0)
Other
59 ( 5.2)
58 (10.1)
70 ( 4.4)
Parents' Edwation
Did not finish high school
8 ( 0.6)
10 (
1.3)
10 ( 0.8)
Graduated high school
26 (
1.3)
19 ( 2.5)
25 ( 1.2)
Some education after high school
21 ( 0.9)
161
1-2)
17 ( 0.9)
Graduated college
40 ( 1.7)
42 ( 4.0)
39 ( 1.9)
Gender
Male
50 ( 0.9)
55 (
2.1)
51 ( 1.1)
Female
50 (
0.9)
45 ( 2.1)
49 ( 1.1)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample. The percentages for Race,Ethnicity may not add to 100 percent because some
students categorized themselves as "Other."
This may also be true of Parents' Education, for which some
students responded "I don't know." Throughout this report, percentages less than 0.5 percent are reported as
0 percent.
14
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS ASSFSSED
Table 2 provides a profile summarizing participation data for Oklahoma schools and
students sampled for the 1990 Trial State Assessment. In Oklahoma, 108 public schools
participated in the assessment. The weighted school panicipation rate was 99 percent,
which means that all of the eighth-grade students in this wnple of schools were
representative of 99 percent of the eighth-grade public-school students in Oklahoma.
TABLE 2
1 Profile of the Population Assessed in Oklahoma
EIGHTWORADE PUBLIC, SCHOOL
PARTICIPATION
Weighted school participation
rate before substitution
Weighted school participation
rate after substitution
Number of schools originally
Sampled
Number of schools not eligible
Number of schools in original
Sample participating
Number of substitute schools
provided
Number of substitute sChOOIS
Particnaating
Total number of participating
schools
78%
99%
26
23
108
EIGHTH-GRADE PUBLIC-SCHOOL STUDENT
PARTICIPATION
4=1.1M1111101=1111111,
Weighted student participation
rate after make-ups
Number of students selected to
participate in the assessment
Number of students withdrawn
from the assessment
Percentage of students who were
of Limited English Proficiency
Percentage of students excluded
from the assessment due to
Limited inglish Proficiency
Percentage of students who had
an Individualized Education Plan
Percentage of students excluded
from the assessment due to
individualized Education Plan status
Number of students to be assessed
Number of students assessed
80%
3,1;4
194
1%
0%
8%
5%
2,758
2,222
The weighted student response rate within participating schools in Oklahoma was below 85 percent. Oklahoma
was the only state that required signed parental permission forms on a statewide basis.
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
15
Oklahoma
In each school. a random sample of students was selected to participate in the assessment.
As estimated by the sample, 1 percent of the eighth-grade public-school population was
classified as Limited English Proficient (LEP), while 8 percent 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 progam of activities and/or related services necessary to achieve the
goals and objectives.
Schools were permitted to exclude certain students from the assessment. To be excluded
from the assessment, a student had to be categorized as Limited English Proficient or had
to have an Individualized Education Plan and (in either case) be judged incapable of
participating in the assessment. The students who were excluded from the assessment
because they were categorized as LEP or had an IEP represented 0 percent and 5 percent
of the population, respectively.
In to:al, 2,222 eighth-grade Oklahoma public-school students werr assessed. The weighted
student participation rate was 80 percent. This means that the sample of students who
took part in the assessment was representative of 80 percent of the eligible eighth-grade
public-school student population in Oklahoma.
36
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
PART ONE
4.
ME NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
How Proficient in Mathematics Are Eighth-Grade
Students in Oklahoma Public Schools?
The 1990 Trial State Assessment covered five mathematics content areas -- Numbers and
Operations; Measurement; Geometry; Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability; and
Algebra and Functions. Students' overall performance in these content areas was
summarized on the NAEP mathematics scale, which ranges from 0 to 500.
This part of the report contains two chapters that describe the mathematics proficiency of
eighth-grade public-school students in Oklahoma. Chapter 1 compares the overall
mathematics performance of the students in Oklahoma to students in the West region and
the nation. It also presents the students' average proficiency separately for the five
mathematics content areas. Chapter 2 summarizes the students' overall mathematics
performance for subpopulations defined by race/ethnicity, type of community, parents'
education level, and gender, as well as their mathematics performance in the five content
areas.
TIM 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
17
Ok lair. ma
CHAPTER 1
Students' Mathematics Performance
As shown in Figure 2, the average proficiency of eighth-grade public-school students from
Oklahoma on the NAFP mathematics scale is 263. This proficiency is no different from
that of students across the nation (261).2
FIGURE 2
Average Eighth-Grade Public-School
I Mathematics Proficiency
NAEP Mathematics Scale
0
200
225
250
275
300
500
N
Average
Proficiency
PH
Oklahoma
253 ( 1.2)
P-4.1
West
261
( 2.6)
NI
Nation
261
( 1.4)
==.==.M
The standard errors are presented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the average mathematics
proficiency for each population of interest is within
I
2 standard errors of the estimated mean (95 percent
confidence interval, denoted by 14-4).
If the confidence inter%als for the populations do not overlap, there is a
statistically significant difference between the populations.
2 Differences reported are statistically different at about the 95 percent certainty level. This means that with
about 95 percent certainty there is a real difference in the merage mathematics proficiency between the two
populations of interest,
Is
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
LEVELS OF MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
Average proficiency on the NAEP scale provides a global view of eighth graders'
mathematics achievement; however, it does not reveal the specifics of what the students
know and can do in the subject. To describe the nature of students' proficiency in greater
detail, NALP used the results from the 1990 national assessments of fourth-, eighth-, and
twelfth-grade students to define the skills, knowledge, and understandings that characterize
four levels of mathematics performance -- levels 200, 250, 300, and 350 -- on the NAEP
scale.
To define the skills, knowledge, and understandings that characterize each proficiency level,
mathematics specialists studied the questions that were typically answered correctly by
most students at a particular level but answered incorrectly by a majority of students at the
next lower level. They then summarized the kinds of abilities needed to answer each set
of questions. While defming proficiency levels below 200 and above 350 is theoretically
possible, so few students performed at the extreme ends of the scale that it was impractical
to define meaningful levels of mathematics proficiency beyond the four presented here.
Definitions of the four levels of mathematics proficiency are Oven in Figure 3. It is
important to note that the definitions of these levels are based solely on student
performance on the 1990 mathematics assessment. The levels are not judgmental standards
of what ought to be achieved at a particular grade. Figure 4 provides the percentages of
students at or above each of these proficiency levels. In Oklahoma, 99 percent of the
eighth graders, compared to 97 percent in the nation, appear to have acquired skills
involving simple additive reasoning and problem solving with whole numbers (level 200).
However, many fewer students in Oklahoma (10 percent) and 12 percent in the nation
appear to have acquired reasoning and problem-solving skills involving fractions, decimals,
percents, elementary geometric properties. and simple algebraic manipulations (level 300).
CONTENT AREA PERFORMANCE
As previously indicated, the questions comprising the Trial State Assessment covered five
content areas -- Numbers and Operations; Measurement; Geometry; DIta Analysis,
Statistics, and Probability; and Algebra and Functions.
Figure 5 provides the Oklahoma,
West ree_ion, and national results for each content area. Students in Oklahoma performed
comparably to students in the nation in all of these five content areas.
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
19
Oklahoma
FIGURE 3
I
Levels of Mathematics Proficiency
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
LEVEL 200
Simple Additive Reasoning and Problem Solving with Whole
Numbers
Students at this level have some degree of undc-standing of simple quantitative relationships involving
whole numbers. They can solve simple addition and subtraction problems with and without regrouping.
Using a calculator, they can extend thele abilities to multiplication and division problems. These Students
can Identify solutions to one-step word problems and Select the greatest four-digit number In a list.
In measurement, these students can read a ruler as well aS Common Weight and graduated scales, They
also can make volume comparisons based on visualization and determine the value of coins. In geometry,
these Students can recognize simple figures. In data analysis, they are able to read simple bar graphs. In
the algebra dimension, these students can recognize translations of word problems to numerical sentences
and extend simple pattern sequences.
LEVEL 250
Simple Multiplicative Reasoning and Two-Step Problem Solving
Students at this level have extended their understanding of quantitative reasoning with whole numbers from
additive to multiplicative settings.
They can solve routine one-step multiplication and division problems
involving remainders and two-step addition and subtraction problems involving money. Using a calculator,
they can identify solutions to other elementary two-step word problems,
In these basic problem-solving
situations, they can identify missing or extraneous information and have some knowledge of when to use
computational estimation. They have a rudimentary understanding of such concepts as whole number place
value, "even," "factor," and "multiple."
In measurement, these students can use a ruler to measure objects, convert units within a system when the
conversions require multiplication, and recognize a numerical expression solving a measurement word
problem.
In geometry, they demonstrate an initial understanding of basic terms and properties, such as
parallelism and symmetry. In data analysis, they can complete a bar graph, sketch a circle graph, and use
information from graphs to solve simple problems.
They are beginning to understand the relationship
between proportion and probability.
In algebra, they are beginning to deal informally with a variable
through numerical substitution in the evaluation of simple expressions.
20
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
FIGURE 3
I Levels of Mathematics Proficiency
(continued)
I
LEVEL 300
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARO
Reasoning and Problem Solving involving Fractions, Decimals,
Percents, Elementary Germetric Properties, and Simple Algebraic
Manipulations
Students at this level are able to represent, interpret, and perform simple operations with fractionS and
decimal numbers. They are able to locate fractions and decimals on number lines, simplify fractions, and
recognize the equivalence between common fractions and decimals, Including pictorial representations.
They can interpret the meaning of percents leSs than and greater than 100 and apply the concepts of
percentages to solve simple problems. These students demonstrate some evidence of using mathematical
notation to interpret expressions, including those with exponents and negative integers.
In measurement, these students can find the perimeters and areas ot rectangles, recognize relationships
among common units of measure, and use proportional relationships to solve routine problems involving
similar triangles and scale drawings.
In geometry, they have some mastery ot the definitions and
properties of geometric figureS and solidS.
In data analysis, these students can calcuiate averages, select and interpret data from tabular displays,
pictographs, and line graphs, compute relative frequency distributions, and have a beginning understanding
of sample bias.
In algebra, they can graph points in the Cartesian plane and perform simple algebraic
manipulations such as simplifying an expression by collecting like terms, identifying the solution to open
linear sentences and inequalities by substitution, and checking and graphing an interval representing a
compound inequality when it is described in words.
They can determine and apply a rule for simple
functional relations and extend a numerical pattern.
LEVEL 350
Reasoning and Problem Solving involving Geometric Relationships,
Algebraic Equations, and Beginning Statistics and Probability
Students at this level have extended their knowledge of number and algebraic understanding to include
some properties of exponents.
They can recognize scientific notation on a calculator and make the
transition between scientific notation and decimal notation.
In measurement, they can apply their
knowledge of area and perimeter of rectLngles and triangles to solve problems.
They can find the
circumferences of circles and the surface areas of solid figures.
In geometry, they can apply the
Pythagorean theorem to solve problems involving indirect measurement. These students also can apply
their knowledge of the properties of geometric figures to solve problems, such as determining the slope of
a line.
In data analysis, these students can compute means from frequency tab
and determine the probability
of a simple event.
In algebra, Mey can identify an equation describing a linear relation provided in a table
and solve literal equations and a system of two linear equations. They are developing an understanding
of linear functions and their graphs, as well as functional notation, including the composition of function.
They can determine the nth term of a sequence and give counterexamples to disprove an algebraic
generalization.
4..
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STAlE ASSESSMENT
21
Oklahoma
FIGURE 4
I Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School
Mathematics Proficiency
LEVEL 350
State
Region
Nation
LEVEL 300
State
Region
Nation
LEVEL 250
State
Region
Nation
LEVEL 200
State
Region
Nation
0
20
40
60
80
00
Percentage at or Abovo Proficiency Levels
The standard errors are presented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the value
for each population of interest is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimated percentage (95
percent confidence interval, denoted by 1-0-1).
If the confidence intervals for the populations
do not overlap, there is a statistically significant difference between the populations,
22
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Peramtage
0 ( 0.0)
0 ( 0.4)
0 ( 0.2)
10 ( 1.0)
12 ( 2.4)
12 ( 1.2)
67 ( 1.7)
63 ( 2.8)
64 ( 1.8)
99 ( 0.4)
97 ( 1.0)
97 ( 0.7)
Oklahoma
FIGURE 5
I Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics
Content Area Performance
State
Region
Nation
State
Region
Nation
State
Region
Nation
State
Region
Nation
State
Region
Nation
NIAIBERS AND OPERATIONS
MEASUREMENT
GEOMETRY
111.4
10410040.
144.11
DATA ANALYSIS, STATISTICS, AND PROBABILITY
P.+011
F-410041
ALGEBRA AND FUNCTIONS
0
200
225
250
275
Average
Proficiency
268 ( 1.2)
294 ( 2.6)
266 ( 1.4)
238 ( 1.5)
258 ( 3.0)
258 ( 1.7)
259 (
1.4)
260 ( 2.6)
259 (
1.4)
264 ( 1.6)
262 ( 3.6)
262 (
1.8)
262 ( 1.2)
259 ( 2.4)
260 ( 1.3)
300
500
Mathematics Subscale Proficiency
The standard errors are presented in parentheses.
With about 95 percent certainty, the
average mathematics proficiency for each population of interest is within
t
2 standard
errors of the estimated mean (95 percent confidence interval, denoted
by 14-1).
If the
confidence intervals for the populations do not overlap, there IS a statistically significant
difference between the populations.
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
23
Oklahoma
CHAPTER 2
Mathematics Performance by Subpopulations
In addition to the overall state results, the 1990 Trial State Assessment included reporting
on the performance of various subgroups of the student population defined by
race/ethnicity, tyne of community, parents' education level, and gender.
RACE/ETHNICITY
The Trial State Assessment results can be compared according to the different racial/ethnic
groups when the number of students in a racial 'ethnic group is sufficient in size to be
reliably reported (at least 62 students). Average mathematics performance results for
White, Black, Hispanic, and American Indian students from Oklahoma are presented in
Figure 6.
As shown in Figure 6, White students demonstrated higher average mathematics
proficiency than did Black, Hispanic, or Amcrican Indian students.
Figure 7 presents mathematics performance by proficiency levels. The figure shows that a
greater percentage of White students than Black, Hispanic, o: American Indian students
attained level 300.
3 t.)
24
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
FIGURE 6
I Average Eighth-Grade Public-School
i Mathematics Proficiency by Race/Ethnicity
NAEP Mathematics Scale
200
225
250
275
300
SOO
Awrage
Proficiency
POW
Oklahoma
WhIte
INS ( 14)
1.4
Black
1.9)
Hispanic
3.7)
Amencan Indian
(
West
White
( 3.2)
Black
247 (
6.11)1
/-4,004
Hispanic
24141 ( 3.7)
American Indian
AIM (
Nahon
White
20
(1.5)
1-411
Black
7:34
2.11)
Hispanic
243
2.6)
American Indian
2N ( 5.3)1
The standard errors are presented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the average mathematics
proficiency for each population of interest is within
rt 2 standard errors of the estimated mean (95 percent
confidence interval, denoted by 1-1-4). If the confidence intervals for the populations do not overlap, there is a
statistically significant difference between the populations.
1 Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample
does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *1" Sample size is
insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
25
Oklahoma
FIGURE 7
Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School
I Mathematics Proficiency by Race/Ethnicity
LEVEL 300
State
White
Black
Hispanic
Amer. Indian
Region
White
Black
Hispanic
Amer. Indian
Natien
White
Black
Hispanic
Amer. Indian
LEVEL 250
State
White
Black
Hispanic
Amer. Indian
Region
White
Black
Hispanic
Amer. Indian
Nation
White
Black
Hispanic
Amer. Indian
LEVEL 200
State
White
Black
Hispanic
Amer. Indian
Region
White
Black
Hispanic
Amer. Indian
Nation
White
Black
Hispanic
Amer. Indian
hleS
1ilmsomal
e-git
11porpoll
1111
p=erommwmwomi
110101.11.1,01MIMPIN4
111000,0
Percentage
12
( 1.3)
0 ( 0.9)
3 ( 1.3)
4 ( 2.5)
15
( 3.2)
6 ( 5.0)1
3 ( 1.6)
( **le
15 ( 1.5)
2 ( 1.3)
3
( 1.1)
I
( 2.3)1
75
( 1.6)
25 ( 3.4)
40 ( 6.1)
59 ( 5.0)
74 ( 3.3)
(12.8)1
41
( 5.4)
"AA
74
( 1.8)
30 ( 34)
41
( 4.5)
45 (16.0)'
99 ( 0.3)
94 ( 2.7)
96 ( 3.4)
GB
1.4)
0.8)
95 (
3.0)1
93
( 2.0)
(
***
96 ( 0.4)
1=1
ea ( 3.1 )
93 (
1.6)
97
( 6.7)1
0
20
40
60
80
Percentage at or Above Proficiency Levels
The standard errors are presented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the value
for each population of Interest is within
2 standard errors of the estimated percentage (95
percent confidence interval, denoted by 1-4-4).
If the confidence intervals for the populations
do not overlap, there
is
a statistically significant difference between the populations.
Proficiency level 350 is not presented in this figure because so few students attained that level.
Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination
of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit
a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
100
r
-1
26
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
T'YPE OF CONLMUNITY
Figure 8 and Figure 9 present the mathematics proficiency results for eighth-grade students
attending public schools in advantaged urban areas, disadvantaged urban areas, extreme
rural areas, and areas elanified as "other". (These are the "type of community" groups in
Oklahoma with student samples large enough to be reliably reported.) The results indicate
that the average mathematics performance of the Oklahoma students attending schools in
advantaged urban areas was higher than that of students attending schools in disadvoztaged
urban areas, extreme rural areas, or areas classified as "other".
FIGURE 8
I Average Eighth-Grade Public-School
! Mathematics Proficiency by Type of
I Community
NAEP Mathematics Scat
0
200
225
250
275
300
SOO
Average
Pronciency
ssomm.
let
1-4.4
Oklahoma
Advantaged urban
Disadvantaged urban
Extreme rural
Other
21111
11111
211
( .2.8)1
2.1)1
( 3.2)
( 1.4)
West
P-4101
Advantaged urban
2411
( 3.1)1
Disadvantaged urban
SIX
( 5.3)1
Extreme rural
243
( 73)1
1,-1041
Other
( 3.6)
Nation
1
Advantaged urban
201
( 3.3)1
Disadvantaged urban
248
( 3.5)1
Extreme rural
211
( 4.1p
h400,4
141
Other
241
tel)
Ammiww=mmomcvall
The standard errors are presented in parentheses.
With about 95 percent certainty, the average mathematics
proficiency for each population of interest is within ± 2 standard errors of the estimated mean (95 percent
confidence interval, denoted by 1-6-4).
If the confidence intervals for the populations do not overlap, there is a
statistically significant differeme between the populations.
! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample
does not allow accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency.
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSM EN
27
Oklaiwnta
FIGURE 9
LEVEL 300
Stat.
Adv. urban
Disadv. urban
Ext. rural
Other
Region
Adv. urban
Disadv. urban
Ext. rural
Other
Nation
Adv. urban
Dtsaclv. urban
Ext. rural
Other
LEVEL 260
state
Adv. urban
Disadv. urban
Ext. rural
Other
Region
Mv. urban
Disadv. urban
Ext. rural
Other
Nation
Mv. urban
Dtsadv. urban
Ext. rural
Other
LEVEL 200
State
Adv. urban
Dtsadv, urban
Ext. rural
Other
Region
Adv. urban
Dtsadv. urban
Ext. rural
Other
Nation
Adv. urban
Dtsadv, urban
Ext. rural
Other
Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School
Mathematics Proficiency by Type of
Community
1111111111111.111
1..empmg
1Nesol
ttv14
0-4-4
1011111111114
20 ( 3.8)1
3 ( 1.9)1
5 ( 2.4)
11
( 1.4)
31
( 3.1)1
9 ( 3.5)1
6 ( 4.8)1
10 ( 1.8)
26 ( 4.8)1
7
( 2.1)1
8 ( 2.3)1
12
( 1.2)
90
( 2.7)1
49
( 4.7)1
00 ( 4.8)
( 2.1)
83
( 3.3)1
57
( 8.0)1
52 (12.8)1
62 ( 5.0)
83
( 4.6)1
48
( 5.0)1
68
( 6.2)1
64
( 2.3)
100
1 0.0>
97
( 2.0)!
97
( 1.6)
101
( 0.4)
100
( 0.0)
90
( 2.0)1
98
(
1.3)1
96
( 1.7)
100 ( 0 0)
95
(
1.5)1
97
( 2.8)1
o-o-s
97
( 1.0)
20
40
60
80
Percentage at or Above Proficiency Levels
rhe standard errors are presented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the value
for each population of interest is within
:
2 standard errors of the estimated pervntage (95
percent confidence interval, denoted by I-4-4).
If the confidence intervals for the populations
do not overlap, there
is
a statistically
significant difference between the populations
Proficiency level 350 is not presented in this figure because so few students attained that level.
! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination
of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency.
100
t)
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSME\1
Oklahoma
PAREN"TS' EDUCATION LEVEL
Previous NAEP findings have shown that students whose parents are better educated tend
to have higher mathematics proficiency (see Figures 10 and 11). In Oklahoma, the average
mathematics proficiency of eighth-grade public-school students having at least one parent
who graduated from college was approximately 23 points higher than that of students who
reported that neither parent graduated from high school. As shown in Table 1 in the
Introduction, about the same percentage of students in Oklahoma (40 percent) and in the
nation (39 percent) had at least one parent who graduated from college. In comparison,
the percentage of students who reported that neither parent graduated from high school
was 8 percent for Oklahoma and 10 percent for the nation.
FIGURE 10
I Average Eighth-Grade Public-School
1 Mathematics Proficiency by Parents' Education
MAEP Mathematics Scale
200
225
250
275
300
500
lie
MOIR
CAM
Average
Proficiency
PM
1.4
Oklahoma
HS non-graduate
HS graduate
Some college
College graduate
West
HS non-graduate
216 ( 2.6)
212 ( 1.4)
218 ( 1.5)
rn
1.6)
248 ( 4.4)
144
HS graduate
210 C 2.2)
Some college
2.11 ( 3.0)
P-4-1
College graduate
273 ( 2.8)
Nation
HS non-graduate
243 ( 2.0)
HS graduate
264 ( 14)
Some college
218 ( 1.7)
College graduate
274 ( 1.6)
The standard errors are presented in parentheses.
With about 95 pe,cent certainty, the average mathematics
proficiency for each population of interest is within
2 standard errors of the estimated mean (95 percent
confidence interval, denoted by I-4-1).
If the confidence intervals for the populations do not overlap, there is a
statistically significant difference between the populations.
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
29
Oklahoma
ME NATION'S
REPORT N-
FIGURE 11
I
Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School
CARD
I Mathematics Proficiency by Parents' Education
LEVEL 300
State
HS non-grad.
HS graduate
Some college
College grad.
Region
HS non-grad.
HS graduate
Some college
College grad.
Nation
HS non-grad.
HS graduate
Some college
College grad.
LEVEL 250
State
HS non-grad.
HS graduate
Some college
College grad.
Region
HS non-grad.
HS graduate
Some college
College grad.
Nation
HS non-grad.
HS graduate
Soma college
College grad.
LEVEL 200
Rate
HS non-grad.
HS graduate
Some college
College grad.
Region
HS non-grad.
HS graduate
Some college
College grad.
Nation
HS non-grad.
HS graduate
Some college
College grad.
1"04
PPS
10-limiN4
im...4mammu$
pow,11
1111041
paftw....-...momf
lom411minwmilli
pImmemil
0-1.004
III
1-40.1II
Ps
PS
20
40
60
80
Percentage at or Above Proficiency Levels
The standard errors are presented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the value
for each population of interest is within 1 2 standard errors of the estimated percentage (95
percent confidence interval, denoted by 1-0-1). If the confidence intervals for the populations
do not overlap, there
is a statistically significant difference between the populations.
Proficiency level 350 is not presented in this figure because so few students attained that level.
Percentage
100
,3 E;
30
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
2
(
1.4)
3
( 0.9)
10 ( 2.4)
17
( 2.0)
2
( 2.3)
2
(
1 .3)
15
(
2.8)
21
(
3.5)
1
( 0.9)
5 ( 13)
12
(
1.4)
21
( 1.9)
52
( 4.4)
53
( 3.1)
72
( 2.8)
79 ( 1.9)
44
( 8.8)
51
( 4.4)
75
( 4.1)
78 ( 3.6)
37
( 4.6)
58
( 2.7)
71
( 2.6)
( 2.0)
97
( 1.6)
( 0.8)
90
(
1.1)
( 0.5)
( 3.2)
(
1.6)
( 0.7)
( 0.7)
( 1.9)
( 0.8)
( 0.7)
( 0.7)
Oklahoma
GENDER
As shown in Figure 12, eighth-grade males in Oklahoma had a higher average mathematics
proficiency than did eighth-grade females in Oklahoma. Compared to the national results,
females in Oklahoma performed no differently from females across the country; males in
Oklahoma performed no differently from males across the country.
FIGURE 12
I
Average Eighth-Grade Public-School
Mathematics Proficiency by Gender
NAEP Mathematics Scale
0
200
225
250
275
300
SOO
TIE
MORT
Average
Proficiency
Oklahoma
t94
Male
21116 ( 1.4)
144
Female
311 ( 1.4)
West
14404
Male
OR2 ( 3.5)
1-404
Female
2
( 2.6)
Nation
144
Male
2R2 (
144
Female
no ( 1.3)
The standard errors are presented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certanity, the average mathematics
proficiency for each population of interest is within
2 standard errors of the estimated mean (95 percent
confidence interval, denoted by 144).
If the confidence intervals for the populations do not overlap, there ls a
statistically significant difference between the populations.
As shown in Figure 13, there was no difference between the percentages of males and
females in Oklahoma who attained level 200.
Ilie percentage of females in Oklahoma who
attained level 200 was similar to the percentage of females in the nation who attained level
200. Also, the percentage of males in Oklahoma who attained level 200 was similar to the
percentage of males in the nation who attained level 200.
" rof
e
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
31
Oklahoma
FIGURE 13
I Levels of Eighth-Grade Public-School
Mathematics Proficiency by Gender
LEVEL 300
State
Male
Female
Region Male
Female
Nation
Male
Female
LEVEL 250
State
Male
Female
Region Male
Female
Nation
Male
Female
LEVEL 200
State
Male
Female
Reptilian
Male
Female
Nation
Male
Female
Percentage
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percentage at or Above Proficiency Levels
The standard errors are presented in parentheses. With about 95 percent certainty, the value
for each population of interest is within
2 standard errors of the estimated percentage (95
percent confidence interval, denoted by 1-0-1).
If the confidence intervals for the populations
do not overlap, there
is a i'atistically
significant difference between the populations.
Proficiency level 350 is not presented in this figure because so few students attained that level.
32
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
70 ( 2,4)
64
( 2.1)
65
( 4.1)
61
( 3.2)
64 ( 2.0)
64 ( 1.8)
90 ( 0.4)
0.
( 0.6)
97
( 1.2)
90
( 1.0)
07 ( 0.9)
97
( 0.8)
Oklahoma
In addition, there was no difference between the percentages of males and females in
Oklahoma who attained level 300. The percentage of females in Oklahoma who attained
level 300 was similar to the percentage of females in the nation who attained level 300.
Also, the percentage of males in Oklahoma who attained level 300 was similar to the
percentage of males in the nation who attained level 300.
CONTENT AREA PERFORMANCE
Table 3 provides a summary of content area performance by race/ethnicity, type of
community, parents' education level, and gender.
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
33
Oklahoma
TABLE 3
I
Eighth-Grade Public-School Mathematics
Content Area Performance by Subpopulations
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY OF STUDENTS
1 1990 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
Nuirabers and
Operations
surement
Goometty
Data Analysis'
Statistics, and
Probability
Algebra and
Fnctions
TOTAL
Proficiem
Proficiency
Proficiency
Proficiency
Proficiency
State
268 ( 1.2)
258 (
1.5)
259 ( 1.4)
264 ( 1.6)
282 ( 1.2)
Region
264 ( 2.6)
258 ( 3.0)
260 ( 2.6)
262 ( 3.6)
259 ( 2,4)
Nation
266 ( 1.4)
258 ( 1.7)
259 ( 1.4)
262 ( 1.8)
260 ( 1.3)
RACE/ETHNICITY
White
State
272 ( 1.3)
264 ( 1.6)
264 ( 1.3)
271 ( 1.5)
267 ( 1.1)
Region
271 ( 3.2)
267 ( 3.9)
267 ( 3.0)
272 ( 4.4)
207 ( 2.8)
Nation
273 ( 1.8)
287 ( 2.0)
267 ( 1.5)
272 ( 1.8)
268 ( 1.4)
Black
State
243 ( 1.9)
224 ( 2.8)
233 ( 2.7)
233 ( 3.5)
239 ( 2.5)
Region
250 ( 6.8)1
240 (10.7)1
249 ( 5.7)1
244 (
8.7)1
248 ( 7.4)1
Nation
244 ( 3.1)
227 ( 3.6)
234 ( 2.8)
231 ( 3.8)
237 ( 2.7)
Hispanic
State
252 ( 3.7)
239 ( 5.2)
245 ( 5.0)
244 ( 4.9)
245 ( 4.1)
Region
248 ( 3.5)
239 ( 4.2)
245 ( 4.4)
240 ( 4.7)
243 ( 4.0)
Nation
248 ( 2.7)
238 (
3.4)
243 ( 3.2)
239 ( 3,4)
243 ( 3.1)
American Indian
State
Region
260
( 2.6)
251 (
( 3.2)
111,1r
M.* )
252 (
***
3.3)
NI* )
255 (
(
3.3)
...)
Nation
249 ( 7.8)1
247 (
8.8)1
248 ( 8.8)1
242 ( 5.2)1
242 ( 4.9)1
TYPE OF COMMUNITY
Advantaged urban
State
282 ( 2.5)1
280 (
4.0)1
277 (
2.8)1
284 ( 4.6)1
278 (
3.4)1
Region
284 ( 3.6)1
283 ( 2 7)1
279 ( 8.9)1
288 ( 4.1)1
279 (
2.9)1
Nation
283 ( 3.2)1
281 (
3.2)1
277 ( 5.2)1
285 ( 4.8)i
277 ( 4.8)1
Disadvantaged urban
State
255 ( 2.3)1
244 (
4.4)1
246 (
2.9)1
249 (
5.0)1
251 ( 2.8)1
Region
260 ( 5.4)1
250 (
8.9)1
256 (
4.5)1
255 (
8.3)1
254 ( 4.6)1
Nation
255 ( 3.1)1
242 ( 4.9)1
248 (
3.7)1
247 ( 4.6)1
247 ( 3.2)t
Extreme rural
State
263 ( 3.3)
251 (
3.5)
253 ( 3.4)
256 ( 4.6)
255 ( 2,6)
Region
254 ( 8.6)1
254 ( 4.6)1
252 ( 9.4)1
253 (
8.8)1
251 (
8.5)1
Nation
258 ( 4,3)1
254 ( 4.2)1
253 ( 4.5)1
257 ( 5.0)1
256 ( 4.8)1
Other
State
269 ( 1.5)
260 ( 1.8)
261 (
1.7)
266 (
1.7)
264 ( 1.5)
Region
262 ( 3.5)
255 ( 4.2)
258 ( 3.4)
259 ( 4.2)
258 (
3.5)
Nation
266 ( 1.9)
257 ( 2.4)
259 ( 11)
261 ( 2.2)
261 (
1.7)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
4 0
34
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
TABLE 3
Eighth-Grade Public-S.
t Mathematics
(continued)
I Content Area Performance by Subpopulations
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY OF STUDENTS
_
1900 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
Numb ers and
Operations
Measurement
Geometry
Data Analysis'
Statistics, and
Probability
Algebra and
Functions
TOTAL
Proficiency
Proficiency
Proficiency
Proficiency
Proficiency
State
268 ( 1.2)
258 ( 1.5)
259 ( 1.4)
284 ( 1.0
2e2 ( 1.2)
Region
264 ( 2.6)
258 ( 3.0)
260 ( 2.6)
262 ( 3.6)
259 ( 2.4)
Nation
266 ( 1.4)
258 ( 1.7)
259 ( 1.4)
282 ( 1.8)
200 ( 1.3)
PARENTS EDUCATION
HS non-graduate
State
256 ( 3.0)
241 ( 3.9)
248 ( 2.9)
248 ( 3.4)
$1 ( 2.9)
Region
243 ( 4.2)
242 ( 8.2)
246 ( 4.9)
240 ( 6.2)
45 ( 5.1)
Nation
247 ( 2.4)
237 ( 3.6)
242 ( 2.2)
240 ( 3.1)
( 3.0)
HS graduate
State
258 ( 1.6)
246 ( 2.1)
249 ( 1.4)
253 ( 2.1)
252 ( 1.6)
Region
254 ( 2.5)
245 ( 3.0)
251 ( 3.6)
249 ( 3.2)
250 ( 2.4)
Nation
259 ( 1.8)
248 ( 2.1)
252
1.6)
253 ( 22)
253 ( 2.0)
Some college
State
271 ( 1.8)
262 ( 2.1)
259 ( 1.7)
269 ( 2.1)
264 ( 1.5)
Region
272 ( 2.7)
268 ( 5.3)
264 ( 3.9)
271 ( 4.9)
264 ( 3.2)
Nation
270 ( 1.5)
264 ( 2.7)
262 ( 2.0)
269 ( 2.4)
263 ( 2.2)
Collage graduate
State
277 ( 1.7)
269 ( 2.2)
270 ( 1.8)
275 ( 2.1)
272 ( 1.5)
Region
275 ( 2.7)
271 ( 3.0)
271 ( 2.3)
276 ( 4.3)
272 ( 2.6)
Nation
278 ( 1.8)
272 ( 2.0)
270 ( 1.6)
276 ( 2.2)
273 ( 1.7)
GENDER
Male
State
269 ( 1.4)
263 ( 1.8)
282 ( 1.6)
267 ( 2.0)
262 ( 1.5)
Region
284 ( 3.8)
263 ( 3.5)
261 ( 3.4)
264 ( 4.1)
280 ( 3.3)
Nation
266 ( 2.0)
262 ( 2.3)
260 ( 1.7)
262 ( 2.1)
260 ( 1.6)
Female
State
266 ( 1.5)
253 ( 1.9)
257 ( 1.5)
261 ( 1.7)
262 ( 1.4)
Region
283 ( 2.5)
252 ( 2.9)
259 ( 2.9)
260 ( 4.0)
259 1 2.8)
Nation
266 ( 1.4)
253
1.6)
258 ( 1.5)
261 ( 1.9)
260 ( 1.4)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within
2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
35
Oklahoma
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
PART TWO
Finding a Context for Understanding Students'
Mathematics Proficiency
Information on students' mathematics proficiency is valuable in and of itself, but it
becomes more useful for improving instruction and setting policy when supplemented with
contextual information about schools, teachers, and students.
To gather such information, the students participating in the
rial State Assessment,
their mathematics teachers, and the principals or other adminis.f, !'.rs in their schools were
asked to complete questionnaires on policies, instruction, and programs. Taken together,
the student, teacher, and school data help to describe some of the current practices and
emphases in mathematics education, illuminate some of the factors that appear to be
related to eighth-grade public-school students' proficiency in the subject, and provide an
educational context for understanding information Gn student achievement. 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.
The contextual information provided in Part Two of this report focuses on four major
areas: instructional content, instructional practices, teacher qualifications, and conditions
beyond school that facilitate learning and instruction -- fundamental aspects of the
educational process in the country.
4 2
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
37
Oklahoma
Through the questionnaires administered to students, teachers, and principals, NAEP is
able to provide a broad picture of educational practices prevalent in American schools and
classrooms. In many instances, however, these findings contradict our perceptions of what
school is like or educational researchers' suggestions about what strategies work best to help
students learn.
For example, research has indicated new and more successful ways of teaching and learning,
incorporeting more hands-on activities and student-centered learning techniques; however,
as described in Chapter 4, 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,
large proportions of students report having spent much more time each day watching
televisio-. han doing mathematics homework.
Part Two consists of five chapters. Chapter 3 discusses instructional content and its
relationship to students' mathematics proficiency. Chapter 4 focuses on instructional
practices -- how instruction is delivered. Chapter 5 is devoted to calculator use. Chapter
6 provides information about teachers, and Chapter 7 examines students' home support for
learning.
4 3
3 8
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
CHAPTER 3
What Are Students Taught in Mathematics?
In response to the continuing swell of information about the poor mathematics
achievement of American students, educators and policymakers have recommended
widespread reforms that are changing the direction of mathematics education. Recent
reports have called for fundamental revisions in curriculum, a reexamination of tracking
practices, improved textbooks, better assessment, and an increase in the proportions of
students in high-school mathematics programs.'
This chapter focuses on curricular and
instructional content issues in Oklahoma public schools and their relationship to students'
proficiency.
Table 4 provides a profile of the eighth-grade public schools policies and staffing. Some
of the salient results are as follows:
More than half of the eighth-grade students in Oklahoma (59 percent) were
in public schools where mathematics was identified as a special priority.
This compares to 63 percent for the nation.
3 Curtis McKnight, et al., Me Underachieving Curriculum
Assessing U.S. School Mathematics from an
International Perspective, A National Report on the Second International Mathematics Study (Champaign,
Supes Publishing Company, 1987).
Lynn Steen, Ed. Everybody Counts A Report t-
Nation on the Future of Mathematks Education
(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989).
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
39
Oklahoma
In Oklahoma, 64 percent of the students could take an algebra course in
eighth grade for high school course placement or credit.
Many of the students in Oklahoma (87 percent) were taught mathematics
by teachers who teach only one subject.
More than half (56 percent) of the students in Oklahoma were typically
taught mathematics in a class that was grouped by mathematics ability.
Ability grouping was equally prevalent across the nation (63 percent).
TABLE 4
Mathematics Policies and Practices in
i Oklahoma Eighth-Grade Public Schools
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS
1NO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
West
Nation
Percentage of eighth-grade students in public
schools that identified mathematics as
receiving special emphasis in school-wide
goals and objectives, instruction, in-service
training, etc.
Percentage of eighth-grade public-school students
who are offered a course in algebra for
high school course placement or credit
Percentage of eighth-grade students in public
schools who are taught by teachers wit* teach
only mathematics
Percentage of eighth-grade students in public
schools who are aesigned to a mathematics
class by their ability in mathematics
Percentage of eighth-grade students in public
schools who receive four or more hours of
mathematics instruction per week
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
59 is 4.8)
61 ( 8.6)
63 ( 5.9)
64 ( 4.2)
92 ( 4.7)
78 ( 4.6)
87 ( 3.2)
98 I. 1.6)
91 ( 3.3)
56 ( 3.7)
64 ( 8.3)
33 ( 4.0)
20 ( 3.2)
25 ( 5.9)
30 ( 4.4)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within
2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
40
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
CURRICULUM COVERAGE
To place students' mathematics proficiency in a curriculum-related context, it is necessary
to examine the extent to which eighth graders in Oklahoma are taking mathematics courses.
Based on their responses, shown in Table 5:
About the same percentage of students in Oklahoma were taking
eighth-grade mathematics (53 percent) as were taking a course
in
pre-algebra or algebra (43 percent). Across the nation, 62 percent were
taking eighth-grade mathematics and 34 percent were taking a course in
pre-algebra or algebra.
Students in Oklahoma who were enrolled in pre-algebra or algebra courses
exhibited higher average mathematics proficiency than did those who were
in eighth-grade mathematics courses. This result is not unexpected since
it is assumed that students enrolled in pre-algebra and algebra courses may
be the more able students who have already mastered the general
eighth-grade mathematics curriculum.
TABLE 5
I Students' Reports on the Mathematics Class
I They Are Taking
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
MO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
04dahoma
West
Nation
What kind of mathematics class are you
taking this year,
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Eighth-grade mathematics
53 (
2,7)
63 (
2.7)
(
2.1)
254 (
1.5)
252 (
2,4)
251
(
1.4)
Pre-algebra
30
(
2.7)
15 (
2.7)
19 (
1,9)
267
(
1.8)
266 (
3,6)
272
( 2.4)
Algebra
13 ( 1.1)
17 (
1,8)
15 ( 12)
290 (
2.8)
299 (
4.5)
296
(
2.4)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear m parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within
2 standard er;ors
of the estimate for the sample. The percentages may not total 100 percent because a small number of students
reported taking other mathematics courses,
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
41
Oklahoma
Further, from Table A5 in the Data Appendix:4
About the same percentage of females (44 percent) and males (42 percent)
in Oklahoma were enrolled in pre-algebra or algebra courses.
In Oklahoma, 46 percent of White students, 29 percent of Black students,
28 percent of Hispanic students, and 38 percent of American Indian
students were enrolled in pre-algebra or algebra courses,
Similarly, 40 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban
areas, 49 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 36 percent in
schools in extreme rural areas, and 46 percent in schools in areas classified
as "other" were enrolled in pre-algebra or algebra courses.
MATHEMATICS HOMEWORK
To illuminate the relationship between homework and proficiency in mathematics, the
assessed students and their teachers were asked to report the amount of time the students
spent on mathematics homework each day. Tables 6 and 7 report the teachers' and
students' responses, respectively.
According to their teachers, the greatest percentage of eighth-grade students in public
schools in Oklahoma spent 30 minutes doing mathematics homework each day; according
to the students, the greatest percentage spent 30 minutes doing mathematics homework
each day. Across the nation, according to their teachers, the largest percentage of students
spent either 15 or 30 minutes doing mathematics homework each day, while students
reported spending either 15 or 30 minutes daily.
Further, as reported by their teachers (Table 6 and Table A6 in the Data Appendix):
In Oklahoma, 2 percent of the students spent no time each day on
mathematics homework, compared to 1 percent for the nation. Moreover,
9 percent of the students in Oklahoma and 4 percent of the students in the
nation spent an hour or more on mathematics homework each day.
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.
42
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
The results by race/ethnicity show that 10 percent of White students,
11 percent of Black students, 8 percent of Hispanic students, and
7 percent of American Indian students spent an hour or more on
mathematics homework each day.
In comparison, 1 percent of White
students, 2 percent of Black students, 6 percent of Hispanic students, and
2 percent of American Indian students spent no time doing mathematics
homework.
In addition, 9 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban
areas, 0 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 14 percent in
schools in extreme rural areas, and 9 percent in schools in arras classified
as "other" spent an hour or more on mathematics homework daily.
In
comparison, 2 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban
areas, 1 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 1 percent in
schools in extreme rural areas, and 2 percent in schools in areas classified
as "other" spent no time doing mathematics homework.
TABLE 6
Teachers' Reports on the Amount of Time
Students Spent on Mathematics Homework
Each Day
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
_
-
1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
West
Nation
About how much time 00 students spend
on mathematics homework each day7
_
None
Percentage
and
Proficiency
2 ( 0.5)
*** ( ***)
Percentage
and
Proficiency
1
( 0,3)
en ( en
Percentage
and
Proficiency
15 minutes
24 ( 3.2)
42 ( 6.7)
43 ( 4.2)
258 ( 2.2)
258 ( 4.2)
256 ( 2.3)
30 minutes
54 ( 2.9)
43 ( 6.2)
43 ( 4.3)
263 (
1.7)
264
( 4.7)
266 ( 2.6)
45 minutes
11 ( 1.7)
9 ( 2.3)
10 ( 1.9)
273 ( 3.4)
270 ( &S)'
272 ( 5.7)1
An hour or more
9 (
271 (
2.0)
4,8)1
5 ( 1.9)
.
)
4 (
278 (
0.9)
5,1)1
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It k:an be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is withm
-t 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
! Interpret with caution
the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *" Sample size is insufficient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
43
Oklahoma
TABLE 7
Students' Reports on the Amount of Time They
I Spent on Mathematics Homework Each Day
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1900 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
1
Mamma
Weld
Nation
-
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
IAbout how much time do you usually 1
I
,
spend
each
day
on
mathematics
1
homework?
I
1
L.
J
None
10 ( 0.7)
12 ( 1.7)
9 ( 0.8)
264 ( 2.6)
254 ( 4.2)
251 ( 2.8)
15 minutes
24 ( 1.1)
31 ( 4.5)
31 ( 2.0)
267 (
1.9)
263 ( 3.8)
264 ( 1.9)
30 minutes
29 (
1.1)
28 ( 1.7)
32 ( 12)
263 ( 1.8)
261 ( 2.9)
263 ( 1.9)
45 minutes
1$ ( 0.7)
15 ( 1.6)
16 ( 1.0)
264 ( 2,1)
267 ( 4.2)
266 ( 1.9)
An hour or more
20 (
1.0)
14 ( 1.7)
12 ( 1.1)
257 ( 1.7)
261 ( 4.3)
256 ( 3.1)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
And, according to the students (Table 7 and Table A7 in the Data Appendix):
In Oklahoma, relatively few of the students (10 percent) reported that they
spent no time each day on mathematics homework, compared to 9 percent
for the nation.
Moreover, 20 percent of the students in Oklahoma and
12 percent of students in the nation spent an hour or more each day on
mathematics homework.
The results by race/ethnicity show that 18 percent of White students,
20 percent of Black students, 33 percent of Hispanic students, and
24 percent of American Indian students spent an hour or more on
mathematics homework each day.
In comparison, I 1 percent of White
students, 7 percent of Black students, 10 percent of Hispanic students, and
10 percent of American Indian students spent no time doing mathematics
homework.
44
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
In addition, 14 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban
areas, 26 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 19 percent in
schools in extreme rural areas, aud 20 percent in schools in areas classified
as "other" spent an hour or more on mathematics homework daily. In
comparison, 8 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban
areas, 13 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 10 percent in
schools in extreme rural areas, and 10 percent in schools in areas classified
as "other" spent no tune doing mathematics homework.
INSTRUCTIONAL EMPHASIS
According to the approach of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM),
students should be taught a broad range of mathematics topics, including number concepts,
computation, estimation, functions, algebra, statistics, probability, geometry, and
mv7surement.5 Because the Trial State Assessment questions were designed to measure
students' knowledge, skills, and understandings in these various content areas -- regardless
of the type of mathematics class in which they were enrolled -- the teachers of the assessed
students were asked a series of questions about the emphasis they planned to give specific
mathematics topics during the school year. Their responses provide an indication of the
students' opportunity to learn the various topics covered in the assessment.
For each of 10 topics, the teachers were asked whether they planned to place "heavy,
"moderate," or "little or no" emphasis on the topic. Each of the topics corresponded to
skills that were measured in one of the five mathematics content areas included in the Trial
State Assessment:
Numbers and Operations. Teachers were asked about emphasis placed on
five topics:
whole number operations, common fractions, decimal
fractions, ratio or proportion, and percent.
Measurement. Teachers were asked about emphasis placed on one topic:
measurement.
Geometry.
Teachers were asked about emphasis placed on one topic:
geometry.
Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability.
Teachers were asked about
emphasis placed on two topics:
tables and graphs, and probability and
statistics.
Algebra and Functions. Teachers were asked about emphasis placed on
one topic: algebra and functions,
5 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics
(Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathemaucs, 1989).
5 0
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
45
Oklahoma
The responses of the assessed students' teachers to the topic emphasis questions for each
content area were combined to create a new variable. For each question in a particular
content area, a value of 3 was given to "heavy emphasis" responses, 2 to "moderate
emphasis" responses, and 1 to "little or no emphasis" responses. Each teacher's responses
were then averaged over all questions related to the particular content area.
Table 8 provides the results for the extreme categories -- "heavy emphasis" and "little or
no emphasis" -- and the average student proficiency in each content area. For the emphasis
questions about numbers and operations, for example, the proficiency reported is the
average student performance in the Numbers and Operations content area.
Students whose teachers placed heavy instructional emphasis on Algebra and Functions
had higher proficiency in this content area than students whose teachers placed little or no
emphasis on Algebra and Functions. Students whose teachers placed heavy instructional
emphasis on Numbers and Operations had lower proficiency in this content area than
students whose teachers placed little or no emphasis on Numbers and Operations.
rz
46
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
TABLE 8
I Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given to
i Specific Mathematics Content Areas
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oidahome
West
Nation
Percentage
Snd
Proficiency
Percentage
Proacioncy
Percentage
mid
Prole:fancy
Teacher
"emphasis"
categories
by
content areas
Numbers and Operations
Heavy emphasis
58 ( 3.0)
42 ( 7.4)
49 ( 3.8)
253 ( 1A)
257 ( 3.0)
200 ( 1.8)
Little or no emphasis
9 ( 1.7)
13 ( 2.1)
15 ( 2.1)
290 ( 6.7)
291 ( 6.6)
257 ( 3.4)
Measurement
Heavy emphasis
11 ( 2.5)
11 ( 2.8)
17 ( 3.0)
258 ( 33)1
251 ( 7.7)1
250 ( 5.6)
Little or no emphasis
39 ( 3.8)
36 ( 5.3)
33 ( 4.0)
264 (. 3.0)
275 ( 6.3)
272 ( 4.0)
Geometry
Heavy emphasis
17 ( 2.8)
24 ( 6.3)
28 ( 3.8)
2EI2 ( 2.4)
250
( 2.8)1
260 ( 3.2)
Little or no emphasis
28 ( 3.2)
16 ( 4.5)
21 ( 3.3)
258 ( 2.7)
277 (11.4)I
264 ( 5.4)
Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability
Heavy emphasis
5 ( 1.8)
14 ( 3.7)
14 ( 2.2)
264 (
6.7)1
264 (10.6)1
269 ( 4.3)
Little or no emphasis
68 ( 3.7)
54 ( 6.3)
53 ( 4.4)
263 ( 1.9)
262 ( 4.9)
261 ( 2.9)
Algebra and Functions
Heavy emphasis
55 ( 3.4)
43 ( S 6)
46 ( 3.6)
270 ( 1.6)
277 ( 52)
275 ( 2.5)
Little or no emphasis
15 ( 1.9)
23 ( 5.1)
20 ( 3.0)
246 ( 2.9)
243
( 4.2)1
243 ( 3.0)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the enure population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample. The percentages may not total 100 percent because the "Moderate emphasis"
category is not included.
l interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency.
r.)
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
47
Oklahoma
SUMMARY
Although many types of mathematics learning can take place outside of the school
environment, there are some topic areas that students are unlikely to study unless they are
covered in school. Thus, what students are taught in school becomes an important
determinant of their achievement.
The information on curriculum coverage, mathematics homework, and instructional
emphasis has revealed the following:
More than half of the eighth-grade students in Oklahoma (59 percent) were
in public schools where mathematics was identified as a special priority.
This compares to 63 percent for the nation.
In Oklahoma, 64 percent of the students could take an algebra course in
eighth grade for high-school course placement or credit.
About the same percentage of students in Oklahoma were taking
eighth-grade mathematics (53 percent) as were taking a course
in
pre-algebra or algebra (43 percent).
Across the nation, 62 percent were
taking eighth-grade mathematics and 34 percent were taking a course in
pre-algebra or algebra.
According to their teachers, the greatest percentage of eighth-grade students
in public schools in Oklahoma spent 30 minutes doing mathematics
homework each day; according to the students, most of them spent 30
minutes doing mathematics homework each day.
Across the nation,
teachers reported that the largest percentage of students spent either 15 or
30 minutes doing mathematics homework each day, while students
reported either 15 or 30 minutes daily.
In Oklahoma, relatively few of the students (10 percent) reported that they
spent no time each day on mathematics homework, compared to 9 percent
for the nation.
Moreover, 20 percent of the students in Oklahoma and
12 percent of students in the nation spent an hour or more each day on
mathematics homework.
Students whose teachers placed heavy instructional emphasis on Algebra
and Functions had higher proficiency in this content area than students
whose teachers placed little or no emphasis on Algebra and Functions.
Students whose teachers placed heavy instructional emphasis on Numbers
and Operations had lower proficiency in this content area than students
whose teachers placed little or no emphasis on Numbers and Operations.
5 3
48
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STAT's' ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
CHAPTER 4
MEM 1111111111118ii
111111111-111M11111111
1111111111111k110111111110/1111
11111111111111111111111111
111111111M1111111,11011
1111111
:.11111V.11111111.
sinesoki wows
misamovasiss
111111111M.I11111111
IMI11181111111111
How Is Mathematics Instruction Delivered?
Teachers facilitate learning through a variety of instructional practices. Because a particular
teaching method may not be equally effective with all types of students, selecting and
tailoring methods for students with different styles of learning or for those who come from
different cultural backgrounds is an important aspect of teaching.6
An inspection of the availability and use of resources for mathematics education can
provide insight into how and what students are learning in mathematics. To provide
information about how instruction is delivered, students and teachers participating in the
Trial State Assessment were asked to report on the usc of various teaching and learning
activities in their mathematics classrooms.
AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES
Teachers' use of resources is obviously constrained by the availability of those resources.
Thus, the assessed students' teachers were asked to what extent they were able to obtain
all of the instructional materials and other resources they needed.
° National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Professional Standards for the Thaching of Mathematics
(Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1991).
r"
*
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
49
Oklahoma
From Table 9 and Table A9 in the Data Appendix:
In Oklahoma, 12 percent of the eighth-grade students had mathematics
teachers who reported getting all of the resources they needed, while
33 percent of the students were taught by teachers who got only some or
none of the resources they needed. Across the nation, these figures were
13 percent and 31 percent, respectively.
In Oklahoma, 5 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban
areas, 16 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban areas, 8 percent in
schools in extreme rural areas, and 14 percent in schools in areas classified
as "other" had mathematics teachers who got all the resources they needed.
By comparison, in Oklahoma, 31 percent of students attending schools in
advantaged urban areas, 64 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban
areas, 35 percent in schools in extreme rural areas, and 29 percent in
schools in areas classified as "other" were in classrooms where only some
or no resources were available.
Students whose teachers got all the resources they needed had mathematics
achievement levels similar to those whose teachers got only some or none
of the resources they needed.
TABLE 9
I Teachers' Reports on the Availability of
Resources
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATI-tEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1900 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oidahoma
West
Nation
_
_
Which of the following statements is true
about how well supplied you are by your
school
system
with
the
instrucbonal
materials and other resources you need
to teach your class?
I get all the resoirces I need.
I get most of the resources I need
I get some or none of the resourcem I need.
Percentage
Percentage
Parcentage
and
and
and
Proficiency
Proficiency
Proficiency
42 ( 2.7)
15 ( 5.2)
13 ( 2.4)
258 ( 2,7)1
261 ( 5.9)1
265 ( 4.2)
55 ( 4.6)
62 ( 3.8)
56 ( 4.0)
266 ( 1.7)
266 ( 4.1)
265 ( 2.0)
33 ( 4.0)
23 ( 6.1)
31 ( 4.2)
281 ( 2.2)
257 ( 3.7)1
261 ( 2.9)
The standard errors of the estimated statist, appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of Interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
I Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency.
SO
ME 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
PA1TERNS LN CLASSROOM LNSTRUCT1ON
Research in education and cognitive psychology has yielded many insig1t3 into the types
of instructional activities that facilitate students' mathematics learning. Increasing the use
of "hands-on" examples with concrete materials and placing problems in real-world
contexts to help children construct useful meanings for mathematical concepts are among
the lecommended approaches.'
Students' responses to a series of questions on their
mathematics instruction provide an indication of the extent to which teachers are making
use of the types of student-centered activities suggested by researchers. Table 10 presents
data on patterns of classroom practice and Table 11 provides information on materials used
for classroom instruction by the mathematics teachers of the assessed students.
According to their teachers:
Less than half of the students in Oklahoma (44 percent) worked
mathematics problems in small groups at least once a week; some never
worked mathematics problems in small groups (18 percent).
The largest percentage of the students (72 percent) used objects like rulers,
counting blocks, or geometric shapes less than once a week; some never
used such objects (11 percent).
In Oklahoma, 79 percent of the students were assigned problems from a
mathematics textbook almost every day; 1 percent worked textbook
problems about once a week or less.
About one-quarter of the students (28 percent) did problems from
worksheets at least several times a week; less than half did worksheet
problems less than weekly (40 percent).
7 Thomas Romberg, "A Common Curriculum for Mathematics," Individual Differences and the Common
Curriculum
EWtty-second Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Chicago, Ii
University of Chicago Press, 1983).
r3 0
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
51
Oklahoma
TABLE 10
I Teachers' Reports on Patterns of Mathematics
I Instruction
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1920 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Mahon&
Wind
Radon
About how often
do students
work
problems in small groups?
Partantag
and
Pro &fancy
Nevada's
and
Proliciency
Peroentago
and
Proliciescy
At least once a week
44 ( 3.9)
57 ( 8.9)
50 ( 4.4)
263 ( 2.2)
202 ( 4.2)1
260 ( 2.2)
Less than once a week
38 ( 3.7)
39 ( 7.6)
43 ( 4.1)
266 ( 1.7)
200 ( 4.5)
264 ( 2.3)
Never
18 ( 2.9)
( 2.0)
259 ( 2.8)
(
277 ( 54)1
About how often do students use objects
Percentage
Per011110.11
like rulers, counting blocks, or geometric
and
and
and
solids?
Proaciency
Proficiency
Proficiency
At least once a week
18 ( 2.7)
34 ( 8.2)
22 ( 3.7)
261 ( 2.5)
256 ( 4.9)1
254 ( 3.2)
Lass than once a week
72 ( 3.4)
57 ( 6.4)
89 ( 3.9)
263 ( 1.4)
285 ( 4.0)
263 ( 1.0)
Never
11 ( 2.2)
265 ( 5.4)1
8 ( 3.0)
4.4 ( .44)
9 ( 2.0)
282 ( 5.9)1
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this v'!imated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 student
52
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
TABLE 11
I Teachers' Reports on Materials for
i Mathematics Instruction
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
_
1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
West
Nation
Percentage
and
Proficiency
79 ( 3.4)
265 ( 1.3)
20 ( 3.3)
256 ( 2.6)
(
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proliciem
55 ( 6.0)
270 ( 3.3)
36 ( 5.1)
256 ( 5.2)
9 ( 4.9)
***
(
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
62 ( 3.4)
267 ( 1.6)
31 ( 3.1)
254 ( 2.9)
7 ( 1.8)
280 ( 5.1)1
Percentage
and
Proficiency
rAbout how often do students do problems
from textbooks?
Almost every day
Several times a week
About once a week or less
t
About how often do students do problems
1
on worksheets?
At least several times a weak
28 ( 3.2)
25 ( 5.2)
34 ( 3.8)
257 ( 2.1)
258 ( 4.3)1
256 ( 2.3)
About once a week
32 ( 3.3)
34 ( 4.6)
33 ( 3.4)
264 ( 2.2)
258 ( 4.1)
260 ( 2.3)
Less than weekly
40 ( 3.0)
41 ( 5.6)
32 ( 3.6)
267 ( 2.0)
274 ( 4.2)
274 ( 2.7)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within I 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. 8** Sample size is msufficient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
The next section presents the students' responses to a corresponding set of questions, as
well as the relationship of their responses to their mathematics proficiency. It also
compares the responses of the students to those of their teachers.
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
53
Oklahoma
COLLABORATLNG IN SMALL GROUPS
In Oklahoma, 56 percent of the students reported never working mathematics problems
in small groups (see Table 12); 20 percent of the students worked mathematics problems
in small groups at least once a week.
TABLE 12
I Students' Reports on the Frequency of Small
Group Work
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
,
19SO NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
West
Nation
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
How often do you work in small groups
in your mathematIcs class?
At least one. a week
20 ( 2.0)
35 ( 4.8)
28 ( 2.5)
261 ( 2.6)
258 ( 4.2)
258 ( 2.7)
Loss than once a week
23 ( 2.0)
29 ( 2.8)
2$ ( 1.4)
267 ( 1.8)
271 ( 3.1)
267 ( 2.0)
Never
56 ( 2.6)
36 ( 4.8)
44 ( 2.9)
262 ( 1.5)
258 ( 2.0)
261 ( 1.6)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
Examining the subpopulations (Table Al2 in the Data Appendix):
In Oklahoma, 11 percent of students attending schools in advantaged
urban
areas,
34 percent
in
schools
in
disadvantaged urban
areas,
18 percent in schools in extreme rural areas, and 21 percent in schools in
areas classified as "other" worked in small groups at least once a week.
Further, 20 percent of White students, 26 percent of Black students.
16 percent of Hispanic students, and 19 percent of American Indian
students worked mathematics problems in small groups at least once a
week.
Females were as likely as males to work mathematics problems in small
groups at least once a week (20 percent and 21 percent, respectively).
54
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
USING MATHEMATICAL OBJECTS
Students were asked to report on the frequency with which they used mathematical objects
such as rulers, counting blocks, or geometric solids. Table 13 below and Table A13 in the
Data Appendix summarize these data:
About half of the students in Oklahoma (51 percent) never used
mathematical objects; 19 percent used these objects at least once a week.
Mathematical objects were used at least once a week by 8 percent of
students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 16 percent in schools
in disadvantaged urban areas, 21 percent in schools in extreme rural areas,
and 19 percent in schools in areas classified as "other".
Males were as likely as females to use mathematical objects in their
mathematics classes at least once a week (20 percent and 17 percent,
respectively).
In addition, 17 penent of White students, 27 percent of Black students,
25 percent of Hispanic students, and 21 percent of American Indian
students used mathematical objects at least once a week.
TABLE 13
I Students' Reports on the Use of Mathematics
I Objects
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1000 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
West
Nation
I
How often do you work with objects like
rulers,
counting blocks, or geometric
1,
;
solids in your mathematics class?
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
At least once a week
19 ( 1.6)
36 ( 3.5)
28 ( 1.8)
258 ( 2.2)
260 ( 4.0)
258 ( 2.6)
Less than once a week
30 ( 1.6)
28 ( 1.8)
31 ( 1.2)
287 ( 1.6)
269 ( 2.7)
269 ( 1.5)
Never
51 ( 2.6)
36 ( 3.3)
41 ( 2.2)
282 ( 1.5)
256 ( 2.8)
259 ( 1.8)
The standard errors of the estimated statistiCS appear in pirentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent
ceetainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within I. 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
80
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
55
Oklahoma
MATERIALS FOR MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTION
The percentages of eighth-grade public-school students in Oklahoma who frequently
worked mathematics problems from textbooks (Table 14) or worksheets (Table 15)
indicate that these materials play a major role in mathematics teaching and learning.
Regarding the frequency of textbook usage (Table 14 and Table Al4 in the Data
Appendix):
Many of the students in Oklahoma (86 percent) worked mathematics
problems from textbooks almost every day, compared to 74 percent of the
students in the nation.
7 extbooks were used almost every day by 93 percent of students attending
schools in advantaged urban areas, 89 percent in schools in disadvantaged
urban areas, 84 percent in schools in extreme rural areas, and 87 percent
in schools in areas classified as "other".
TABLE 14
1 Students' Reports on the Frequency of
I Mathematics Textbook Use
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1980 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
West
Nation
r-
How often do you do
mathematics
problems
from
textbooks
in
your
mathematics classy
Percentage
and
Pro &Item
Percentage
and
Profkiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Almost *wiry day
86 ( 1.3)
71 ( 3.5)
74 (
1.9)
285 (
1.3)
267 ( 2.4)
287 (
1.2)
Several times a week
9 ( 0.8)
15 ( 1.5)
14 (
0.8)
252 ( 2.5)
251 ( 2.4)
252 (
1.7)
About once a week or less
4 ( 0.8)
14 ( 3.1)
12 (
1.8)
241 ( 2.1)
242 (11.2)1
242 ( 4.5)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency.
61
56
THE 1990 NA E.'11 TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
And, for the frequency of worksheet usage (Table 15 and Table Al5 in the Data
Appendix):
About one-quarter of the students in Oklahoma (25 percent) used
worksheets at least several times a week, compared to 38 percent in the
nation.
Worksheets were used at least several times a week by 31 percent of
students attending schools in advantaged urban areas, 12 percent in schools
in disadvantaged urban areas, 33 percent in schools in extreme rural areas,
and 23 percent in schools in areas classified as "other".
TABLE 15
I Students' Reports on the Frequency of
i Mathematics Worksheet Use
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
19S0 NAEP TRIAL. STATE ASSESSMENT
1
Oidahonta
West
Nation
How often do you do mathematics
problems
on
worksheets
in
your
mathematics class?
Percentage
and
PreNdency
Percentage
End
Proficiency
Percentage
mW
Proficiency
At least several times a week
25 ( 2.2)
35 ( 4.0)
38 ( 2.4)
253 ( 1.9)
250 ( 4.2)
253 ( 2.2)
About once a week
29 ( 1.8)
23 ( 2.8)
25 ( 1.2)
283 ( 1.3)
262 ( 2.1)
281 ( 1.4)
Liss than wseidy
48 ( 2.3)
41 ( 4.1)
37 ( 2.5)
288( 1.7)
270 ( 3.4)
272 ( 1.9)"-h
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of Interest, the value for the entire population is within
2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
Table 16 compares students' and teachers' responses to questions about the patterns of
classroom instruction and materials for mathematics instruction.
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
57
Oklahoma
TABLE 16
Comparison of Students' and Teachers' Reports
on Patterns of and Materials for Mathematics
Instruction
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS
1900 NAEP TRIAL STATE
ASSESSMENT
,
Oklahonia
west
Nation
Patterns
of
classroom
instruction
PericaSige
Students Teachers
Permellge
SUMS* Teadheis
PlenceiVege
Shideles Teaches
Percentage of students voto
work mathematics probiems in
small groups
At least once a week
20 ( 2.0)
44 ( 3.9)
NS ( 4.8)
57 ( 8.9)
23 ( 2.5)
50 ( 4.4)
Less than once a week
23 ( 2.0)
38 ( 3.7)
29 ( 2.8)
39 ( 7.6)
28 ( 1.4)
43 ( 4.1)
Never
56 ( 2.6)
18 ( 2.9)
36 ( 4.8)
3 ( 2.2)
44 ( 2.9)
8 ( 2.0)
Percentage of students who
use objects like niers, counting
blocks, or geometric solids
At least once a week
19 ( 1.6)
18 ( 2.7)
36 ( 3.5)
34 ( 8.2)
28 (
1.8)
22 ( 3.7)
Less than once a week
30 ( 1.6)
72 ( 3.4)
28 (
1.8)
57 ( $.4)
31 ( 1.2)
89 ( 3.9)
Never
51 ( 2.6)
11 ( 2.2)
36 ( 3,3)
8 ( 3.0)
41 ( 2.2)
9 ( 2.6)
Materials for matn.,matics
Pencentage
Normalise
Ponmatess
instruction
Stuclomes Teachers
ShAents Teachers
Shelents Teachers
Percentage of students eta
use a mathematics textbook
Almost every day
86 (
1.3)
79 ( 3.4)
71 (
D.5)
55 ( 6.0)
74 ( 1.9)
62 ( 3.4)
Several times a week
9 ( 0.8)
20 (
3.3)
15 ( 1.5)
36 ( 5.1)
14 ( 0.8)
31 ( 3.1)
About once a week or less
4 ( 0.8)
1
( 0.7)
14 ( 3.1)
9 ( 4.9)
12 ( 1.8)
7 ( 1.8)
Percentage of students *to
use a mathematics worksheet
At least several times a week
25 ( 2.2)
28 ( 3.2)
35
4.0)
25 ( 5.2)
38 ( 2.4)
34 ( 3.8)
About once a week
29 ( 1.6)
32 ( 3.3)
23 ( 2.6)
34 ( 4.6)
25 ( 1.2)
33 ( 3.4)
Less than weekly
46 ( 2.3)
40 ( 3.0)
41 ( 4.1)
41 ( 5.6)
37 ( 2.5)
32 ( 3.6)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
lt can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within r 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
j
58
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
SUMMARY
Because classroom instructional time is typically limited, teachers need to make the best
possible use of what is known about effective instructional delivery practices and resources.
It appears that mathematics textbooks and worksheets continue to play a major role in
mathematics teaching. Although there is some evidence that other instructional resources
and practices arc en erging, they are not yet commonplace.
According to the students' mathematics teachers:
Less than half of the students in Oklahoma (44 percent) worked
mathematics problems in small groups at least once a week; some never
worked in small groups (18 percent).
The largest percentage of the students (72 percent) used objects like rulers,
counting blocks, or geometric shapes less than once a week, and some
never used such objects (11 percent).
In Oklahoma, 79 percent of the students were assigned problems from a
mathematics textbook almost every day; I percent worked textbook
problems about once a week or less.
About one-quarter of the students (28 percent) did problems from
worksheets at :east several times a week; less than half did worksheet
problems less than weekly (40 percent).
And, according to the students:
In Oklahoma, 56 percent of the students never worked mathematics
problems in small groups; 20 percent of the students worked mathematics
problems in small groups at least once a week.
About half of the students in Oklahoma (51 percent) never used
mathematical objects; 19 percent used these objects at least once a week.
Many of the students in Oklahoma (86 percent) worked mathematics
problems from textbooks almost every day, compared to 74 percent of
students in the nation.
About one-quarter of the students in Oklahoma (25 percent) used
worksheets at least several times a week, compared to 38 percent in the
nation.
1.
THE 1990 NAEP TH.IAL STATE ASSESSMENT
59
Oklahoma
CHAPTER 5
How Are Calculators Used?
Although computation skills are vital, calculators -- and, to a lesser extent, computers --
have drastically changed the methods that can be used to perform calculations. Calculators
are important tools for mathematics and students need to be able to use them wisely. The
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and many other educators believe that
mathematics teachers should help students become proficient in the use of calculators to
free them from time-consuming computations and to permit them to focus on more
challenging tasks.' The increasing availability of affordable calculators should make it
more likely and attractive for students and schools to acquire and use these devices.
Given the prevalence and potential importance of calculators, part of the Trial State
Assessment focused on attitudes toward and uses of calculators. Teachers were asked to
report the extent to which they encouraged or permitted calculator use for various activities
in mathematics class and students were asked about the availability and use of calculators.
8 National Assessment of Educational Progress, Mathematics Objectives
1990 Assessment (Princeton. NJ:
Educational Testing Servicv, 1988).
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Curriculum and Evaluation Standards jor Schaal Mathematics
(Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989).
60
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
Table 17 provides a profile of Oklahoma eighth-grade public schools' policies with regard
to calculator use:
In compa:ison to 33 percent across the nation, 15 percent of the students
in Oklahoma had teachers who allowed calculators to be used for tests.
About the same percentage of students in Oklahoma and in the nation had
teachers who permitted unrestricted use of calculators (10 percent and
18 percent, respectively).
TABLF 17
I Teachers' Reports of Oklahoma Policies on
i Calculator Use
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS
rIan
NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
West
Nation
Percentage of eighth-grade students in public
schools whose teachers permit the unrestricted
use of calculators
Percentage of eighth-grade students in public
schools whose teachers permit the use of
calculators for tests
Percentage of eighth-grade students in public
schools whose teachers report that students
have access to calculators owned by the school
Percentage
Percentage
10 ( 2.3)
20 ( 4.9)
18 ( 3.4)
15 ( 3.0)
48 ( 8.8)
33 ( 4.5)
33
4.3)
72 ( 7.4)
58 ( 4.6)
The standard errors of the estimated statisocs appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within
-r 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
61
Oklahoma
THE AVAILABILITY OF CALCULATORS
In Oklahoma, most students or their families (98 percent) owned calculators (Table 18);
however, fewer students (38 percent) had teachers who explained the use of calculators to
them. From Table A18 in the Data Appendix:
In Oklahoma, 35 percent of White students, 49 percent of Black students,
43 percent of Hispanic students, and 43 percent of American Indian
students had teachers who explained how to use them.
Females were as likely as males to have the use of calculators explained to
them (38 percent and 38 percent, respectively).
TABLE 18
Students' Reports on Whether They Own a
Calculator and Whether Their Taacher Explains
How To Use One
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1990 NAEP TRIAL STATF ASSESSMENT
Mahone
West
Nation
Percentage
and
Proficiency
98 ( 0.3)
263 ( 1.2)
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Profidency
( 0.6)
263 ( 2.6)
( **ft)
Percentage
and
Preficiency
Percentage
and
PiolickincY
97 ( 0.4)
263 ( 1.3)
3 ( 0.4)
234 ( 2.8)
Percentage
and
Profidency
Do you or your family own a calculator?
YIN
No
Does your mathematics teacher explain
how to use a calculator for mathematics
problems?
Yes
38 ( 1.9)
59 ( 3.4)
49 ( 2.3)
258 ( 1.7)
260 ( 2.7)
258 ( 1.7)
No
62 ( 1.9)
41 ( 3.4)
51 ( 2.3)
288 ( 1.2)
285 ( 3.0)
268 ( 1.5)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the ,.r.:imate for the sample.
s** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62
students).
62
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
THE USE OF CALCULATORS
As previously noted, calculators can free students from tedious computations and allow
them to concentrate instead on problem solving and other important skills and content.
As part of the Trial State Assessment, students were askef". ow frequently (never,
sometimes, almost always) they used calculators for worb.
problems in class, doing
problems at home, and taking quizzes or tests. As reported in Table 19:
In Oklahoma, 31 percent of the students never used a calculator to work
problems in class, while 44 percent almost always did.
Some of the students (18 percent) never used a calculator to work
problems at home, compared to 27 percent who almost always used one.
Less than half of the students (42 percent) never used a calculator to take
quizzes or tests, while 18 percent almost always did.
TABLE 19
I Students' Reports on the Use of a Calculator
for Problem Solving or Tests
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
West
Nation
How often do you use a calculator for the
following tasks?
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Protkiency
Work big problems in class
Almost always
44 ( 14)
53 ( 2.1)
48 (
1.5)
254 (
1.8)
255 ( 2.6)
254 (
1.5)
Never
31 ( 1,8)
14 ( 2.4)
23 ( 1.9)
272 ( 1.5)
266 ( 3.0)
272 ( 1.4)
Doing problems at home
Almost always
27 (
1.4)
29 (
1.7)
30 ( 1.3)
258 ( 2.1)
263 ( 3.3)
261 (
1.8)
Never
18 ( 1.0)
19 ( 1.6)
19 ( 0.9)
270 (
1.8)
258 ( 3.7)
263 (
1.8)
Taking quizzes or tests
Almost always
18 (
1.0)
25 ( 1.6)
27 (
1.4)
252 ( 2.2)
259 ( 3.9)
253 ( 2.4)
Never
42 ( 1,5)
22
( 3.0)
30 ( 2.0)
274 (
1.3)
270 ( 3.3)
274 ( 1.3)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
ceTtaint that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is
4ithin
7 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample. The percentages may not total 100 percent because the "Sometimes" category
is not included.
S
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
63
Oklahoma
WHEN TO USE A CALCULATOR
Part of the Trial State Assessment was designed to investigate whether studentsknow when
the use of a calculator is helpful and when it is not. There were seven sections of
mathematics questions in the assessment; however, each student took only three of those
sections. For two of the seven sections, students were given calculators to use. The test
administrator provided the students with instructions and practice on how to use a
calculator prior to the assessment. During the assessment, students were allowed to choose
whether or not to use a calculator for each item in the calculator sections, and they were
asked to indicate in their test booklets whether they did or did not use a calculator for each
item.
Certain items in the calculator sections were defined as "calculator-active" items -- that is,
items that required the student to use the calculator to determine the correct response.
Certain other items were defined as "calculator-inactive" items -- items whose solution
neither required nor suggested the use of a calculator. The remainder of the items were
"calculator-neutral" items, for which the solution to the question did not require the use
of a calculator.
In total, there were eight calculator-active items, 13 calculator-neutral items, and 17
calculator-inactive items across the two sections. Ilowever, because of the sampling
methodology used as part of the Trial State Assessment, not every student took both
sections. Some took both sections, some took only one section, and some took neither.
To examine the characteristics of students who generally knew when the use of the
calculator was helpful and those who did not, the students who responded to one or both
of the calculator sections were categorized into two groups:
High -- students who used the calcuk.or appropriately (i.e., used it for the
calculator-active items and did not use it for the calculator-inactive items)
at least 85 percent of the time and indicated that they had used the
calculator for at least half of the calculator-active items they were presented.
Other -- students who did not use the calculator appropriately at least 85
percent of the time or indicated that they had used the calculator for less
than half of the calculator-active items they were presented.
64
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
The data presented in Table 20 and Table A20 in the Data Appendix are highlighted below:
A smaller percentage of students in Oklahoma were in the High group than
were in the Ciller group.
A smaller percentage of males than females were in the High group.
In addition, 48 percent of White t4udents, 38 percent of Black students,
41 percent of Hispanic students, and 41 percent of American Indian
students were in the High group,
TABLE 20
I Students' Knowledge of Using Calculators
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1900 NAEP TRIAL. STATE ASSESSMENT
Ofdahoina
West
Nation
"Calculator-use" group
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
High
48 ( 1.3)
38 ( 2.6)
42 ( 1.3)
288 ( 1.5)
273 ( 2.7)
272 ( 1.6)
Other
54 ( 1.3)
62 ( 2.6)
56 ( 1.3)
258 ( 1.6)
253 ( 2.8)
255 ( 1.5)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within I
2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
70
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
65
Oklahoma
SUMMARY
Given the prevalence of inexpensive calculators, it may no longer be necessary or useful to
devote large portions of instructional time to teaching students how to perform routine
calculations by hand. Using calculators to replace this time-consuming process would
create more instructional time for other mathematical skill topics, such as problem solving,
to be emphasized.
The data related to calculators and their use show that:
In comparison to 33 percent across the nation, 15 percent of the students
in Oklahoma had teachers who allowed calculators to be used for tests.
About the same percentage of students in Oklahoma and in the nation had
teachers who pelmitted unrestricted use of calculators (10 percent and
18 percent, respectively).
In Oklahoma, most students or their families (98 percent) owned
calculators; however, fewer students (38 percent) had teachers who
explained the use of calculators to them.
In Oklahoma, 31 percent of the students never used a calculator to work
problems in class, while 44 percent almost always did.
Some of the students (18 percent) never used a calculator to work
problems at home, compared to 27 percent who almost always used one.
Less than half of the students (42 percent) never used a calculator to take
quizzes or tests, while 18 percent almost always did.
71
66
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
CHAPTER 6
Who Is Teaching Eighth-Grade Mathematics?
In recent years, accountability for educational outcomes has become an issue of increasing
importance to federal, state, and local governments. As part of their effort to improve the
educational process, poficymakers have reexamined existing methods of educating and
certifying teachers, Many states have begun to raise teacher certification standards and
strengthen teacher training programs. As shown in Table 21:
In Oklahoma, 40 percent of the students were being taught by mathematics
teachers who reported having at least a master's or education specialist's
degree. This compares to 44 percent for students across the nation.
More than half of the students (69 percent) had mathematics teachers who
had the highest level of teaching certification available. This is similar to
the figure for the nation, where 66 percent of the students were taught by
mathematics teachers who were certified at the highest level available in
their states.
Many of the students (80 percent) had mathematics teachers who had a
mathematics (middle school or secondary) teaching certificate.
This
compares to 84 percent for the nation.
9 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Professional Standards for the Teaching of Mathematics
(Restor
Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1991).
0-1
4.1
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
67
Oklahoma
TABLE 21
I Profile of Eighth-Grade Public-School
1 Mathematics Teachers
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS
1980 NAV TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
West
Nation
Percentage of students whose mathematics teachers
reported having the following degrees
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Etarhelor's degree
80 ( 3.8)
88 ( 5.2)
56 ( 4.2)
4sAr's or specialist's degree
40 ( 3.7)
32 ( 52)
42 ( 42)
Doctorate or professional degree
1 ( 0.7)
0 ( 0.0)
2 ( 1.4)
Percentage of students whose mathematics teachers have
the following types of teething certificates that are
recognized by Oklahoma
No regular certification
1 ( 0.4)
6 ( 2.4)
4 ( 1.2)
Regular certification but less than the highest available
31 ( 3.2)
20 ( 3.3)
22 ( 4.3)
Highest certification available (permanent or long-term)
69 ( 3.2)
74 ( 3.3)
66 ( 4.3)
Percentage of students whose mathematics teachers haw
the following typos of teaching certificates that art
recognized by Oldahoma
Mathematics (middle school or secondary)
80 ( 3.6)
88 ( 3.0)
84 ( 2.2)
Education (elementary or middle school)
19 ( 3.4)
9 ( 2.8)
12 ( 2.6)
Other
1 ( 02)
2 ( 1.3)
4 (
1 .S)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within
2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Although mathematics teachers are held responsible for providing high-quality instruction
to their students, there is a concern that many teachers have had limited exposure to
content and concepts in the subject area. Accordingly, the Trial State Assessment gathered
details on the teachers' educational backgrounds -- more specifically, their undergraduate
and graduate majors and their in-service training.
68
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
Teachers' responses to questions concerning their undergraduate and graduate fields of
study (Table 22) show that:
In Oklahoma, 35 percent of the eighth-grade public-school students were
being taught mathematics by teachers who had an undergraduate major in
mathematics. In comparison, 43 percent of the students across the nation
had mathematics teachers with the same major.
Some of the eighth-grade public-school students in Oklahoma (16 percent)
were taught mathematics by teachers who had a gaduate major in
mathematics.
Across the nation, 22 percent of the students were taught
by teachers who majored in mathematics in graduate school.
TABLE 22
I Teachers' Reports on Their Undergraduate and
Graduate Fields of Study
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS
11196 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
OtdaL.oma
West
Nation
What was your undergraduate major?
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Mathematics
35 ( 3.4)
31 ( 5.9)
43 ( 3.9)
Education
59 ( 3.4)
34 ( 6.6)
35 ( 3.8)
Other
6 ( 1.4)
35 ( 6.6)
22 ( 3.3)
' What was your graduate major,
Mathematics
Percentage
16 ( 2.9)
Percentage
19 ( 4.7)
Percentage
22 ( 3.4)
Education
40 ( 4.3)
38 ( 4.5)
38 ( 3.5)
Other or no graduate level study
45 ( 4.3)
45 ( 5.4)
40 ( 3.4)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
69
Oklahoma
Teachers' responses to questions concerning their in-service training for the year up to the
Trial State Assessment (Table 23) show that:
In Oklahoma, 26 percent of the eighth-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,
39 percent of the students had teachers who spent at least that much time
on similar types of in-service training.
Some of the students in Oklahoma (18 percent) had mathematics teachers
who spent no time on in-service education devoted to mathematics or the
teaching of mathematics.
Nationally, 11 percent of the students had
mathematics teachers who spent no time on similar in-service training.
TABLE 23
I Teachers' Reports on Their In-Service Training
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS
1900 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
West
Nation
During the last year, how much time in
total
have you
spent on
in-service
education in mathematics or the teaching
of mathematics?
NOM
0410 to 15 hours
10 hours or more
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
18 ( 2.7)
11 ( 3.0)
11 ( 2.1)
56 ( 3.4)
45 ( 7.0)
51 ( 4.1)
26 ( 3.4)
44 ( 6.9)
39 ( 3.8)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
P1
70
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
SUMMARY
Recent results from international studies have shown that students from the United States
do not compare favorably with students from other nations in mathematics and science
achievement."
Further, results from NAEP assessments have indicated that students'
achievement in mathematics and science is much lower than educators and the public
would like it to be."
In curriculum areas requiring special attention and improvement,
such as mathematics, it is particularly important to have well-qualified teachers. When
performance differences across states and territories are described, variations in teacher
qualifications and practices may point to areas worth further exploration. There is no
guarantee that individuals with a specific set of credentials will be effective teachers;
however, it is likely that relevant training and experience do contribute to better teaching.
The information about teachers' educational backgrounds and experience reveals that:
In Oklahoma, 40 percent of the assessed students were being taught by
mathematics teachers who reported having at least a master's or education
specialist's degree.
This compares to 44 percent for students across the
nation.
More than half of the students (69 percent) had mathematics teachers who
had the highest level of teaching certification available. This is similar to
the figure for the nation, where 66 percent of students were taught by
mathematics teachers who were certified at the highest level available in
their states.
In Oklahoma, 35 percent of the eighth-grade public-school students were
being taught mathematics by teachers who had an undergraduate major in
mathematics. In comparison, 43 percent of the students across the nation
had mathematics teachers with the same major.
Some of the eighth-grade public-school students in Oklahoma (16 percent)
were taught mathematics by teachers who had a graduate major in
mathematics. Across the nation, 22 percent of the students were taugit
by teachers who majored in mathematics in graduate school.
3° Archie E. Lapointe, Nancy A. Mead, and Gary W. Phillips, A World of Difierences
An International
Assessment of Mathematics and Science (Princeton, NJ: Center for the Assessment of Educational Progress,
Educational Testing Service, 1988).
" 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 (Princeton, NJ:
National Assessment of Educational Progress, Educational Testing Service, 1991).
'16
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
71
Oklahoma
In Oklahoma, 26 percent of the eighth-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,
39 percent of the students had teachers who spent at least that much time
on similar types of in-sesvice training.
Some of the students in Oklahoma (18 percent) had mathematics teachers
who spent no time on in-service education devoted to mathematics or the
teaching of mathematics.
Nationally, 11 percent of the students had
mathematics teachers who spent no time on similar in-service training,
72
THE 3990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
CHAPTER 7
The Conditions Beyond School that Facilitate
Mathematics Learning and Teaching
Because students spend much more time out of school each day than they do in school, it
is reasonable to expect that out-of-school factors greatly influence students' attitudes and
behaviors in school. Parents and guardians can therefore play an important role in the
education of their children. Family expectations, encouragement, and participation in
student learning experiences are powerful influences. Together, teachers and parents can
help build students' motivation to learn and can broaden their interest in mathematics and
other subjects.
To examine the relationship between home environment and mathematics 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.
TliE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
73
Oklahoma
AMOUNT OF READING MATERIALS IN THE HOME
The number and types of reading and reference materials in the home may be an indicator
of the value placed by parents on learning and schooling. Students 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 24 and Table
A24 in the Data Appendix.
TABLE 24
I Students' Reports on Types of Reading
i Materials in the Home
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1980 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oidahorna
West
Nation
Does your family have, or receive on a
regular basis, any of the following items:
more than 25 books, an encyclopedia,
newspapers, magazines?
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
mtd
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Prodciency
Zero to two types
22 ( 1.0)
24 ( 1.6)
21 ( 1.0)
252 ( 1.7)
245 ( 4.1)
244 ( 2.0)
tYPos
32 ( 0.9)
31 ( 1.4)
30 ( 1.0)
259 ( 1.4)
258 ( 2.4)
258 ( 1.7)
Four types
46 ( 1.3)
45 ( 1.9)
48 ( 1.3)
271 (
1.4)
273 ( 3.2)
272 ( 1.5)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample,
The data for Oklahoma reveal that:
74
Students in Oklahoma who had all four of these types of materials in the
home showed higher mathematics proficiency than did students with zero
to two types of materials. This is similar to the results for the nation, where
students who had all four types of materials showed higher mathematics
proficiency than did students who had zero to two types.
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
A smaller percentage of Black, Hispanic, and American Indian students had
all four types of these reading materials in their homes than did White
students.
A greater percentage of students attending schools in advantaged urban
areas than in disadvantaged urban areas or extreme rural areas and about
the same percentage of students in schools in advantaged urban areas as in
areas classified as "other" had all four types of these reading materials in
their homes.
HOURS OF TELEVISION WATCHED PER DAY
Excessive television watching is generally seen as detracting from time spent on educational
pursuits. Students participating in the Trial State Assessment were asked to report on the
amount of television they watched each day (Table 25).
TABLE 25
I Students' Reports on the Amount of Time Spent
1 Watching Television Each Day
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
10110 NAIP TRIAL. STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
West
Nation
How much television do you usually
watch each day?
Percentage
and
Profidency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
One hour or less
10 ( 0.7)
14 ( 1.8)
12 ( 0.8)
271 ( 2.7)
289 ( 3.6)
269 ( 22)
Two hours
22 ( 0.9)
20 ( 1.6)
21 ( 0.9)
283 ( 1.8)
285 ( 3.8)
26$ ( 1.3)
Three hours
24 ( 1.0)
20 (
1.2)
22 ( 0.8)
266 ( 1.8)
262 ( 3.2)
285 ( 1.7)
Four to five hours
30 ( 1.1)
29 ( 1.7)
28 ( 1.1)
260 ( 1.5)
283 ( 2.9)
260 ( 1.7)
Six hours or more
14 ( 0.8)
16 ( 2.0)
16 ( 1.0)
249 ( 1.8)
246 ( 2.8)
245 ( 1.7)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
S
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
75
Oklahoma
From Table 25 and Table A25 in the Data Appendix:
In Oklahoma, average mathematics proficiency was lowest for students
who spent six hours or more watching television each day.
Relatively few of the eighth-grade public-school students in Oklahoma
(10 percent) watched one hour or less of television each day; 14 percent
watched six hours or more.
A greater percentage of males than females tended to watch six or more
hours of television daily.
However, a smaller percentage of males than
females watched one hour or less per day.
In addition, 11 percent of White students, 29 percent of Black students,
16 percent of Hispanic students, and 19 percent of American Indian
students watched six hours or more of television each day. In comparison,
11 percent of White students, 5 percent of Black students, 11 percent of
Hispanic students, and 10 percent of American Indian students tended to
watch only an hour or less.
STUDENT ABSENTEEISM
Excessive absenteeism may also be an obstacle to students' success in school. To examine
the relationship of student absenteeism to mathematics proficiency, the 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 26 and Table A26 in the Data Appendix:
In Oklahoma, average mathematics proficiency was lowest for students
who missed three or more days of school.
About half of the students in Oklahoma (45 percent) did not miss any
school days in the month prior to the assessment, while 22 percent missed
three days or more.
In addition, 21 percent of White students, 20 percent of Black students,
36 percent of Hispanic students, and 24 percent of American Indian
students missed three or more days of school.
76
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
Similarly, 19 percent of students attending schools in advantaged urban
areas, 17 percent in schools in disadvantaged urban arras, 18 percent in
schools in extreme rural areas, and 24 percent in schools in areas classified
as "other" missed three or more days of school.
TABLE 26
I Students' Reports on the Number of Days of
School Mined
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
/.14=1.1
1990 NAEP TRIM. STATE ASSESSMEif
Oidanonta
Wen
Nation
r
How many days of school did you miss
last month?
Om or two days
Thras days or mars
Porcanble
and
Proficiency
45 ( 1.2)
266 ( 1.5)
33 ( 0.9)
263 ( 1.4)
22 ( 1.0)
256 ( 1.7)
Pan:enter
Percentage
and
end
Proliciancy
Proficlancy
43 ( 2.7)
266 ( 3.5)
30 ( 1.4)
265 ( 3.0)
27 ( 1.8)
250 ( 3.1)
45( 1.1)
265 ( 1.6)
32 ( 0.9)
266 ( 1,5)
23 ( 1,1)
250 ( 1.9)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with abotn 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
82
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
77
Oklahoma
STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF MATHEMATICS
According to the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, learning mathematics
should require students not only to master essential skills and concepts but also to develop
confidence in their mathematical abilities and to value mathematics as a discipline."
Students were asked if they agreed or disagreed with five 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 mathematics abilities:
I like
mathematics; I am good in mathematics.
Value of mathematics, including students' perceptions of its present utility
and its expected relevance to future work and life requirements: Almost all
people use 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 soMng everyday
problems.
A student "perception index" was developed to examine students' perceptions of and
attitudes toward mathemeics. For each of the five statements, students who responded
"strongly agree" were given a value of 1 (indicating very positive attitudes about the
subject), those who responded "agree" were given a value of 2, and those who responded
"undecided," "disagme," or "strongly disagxee" were given a value of 3. Each student's
responses were averaged over the five statements. The students were then h5signed a
perception index according to whether they tended to strongly agree with the statements
(an index of 1), tended to agree with the statements (an index of 2), or tended to be
undecided, to disagree, or to strongly disagree with the statements (an index of 3).
Table 27 provides the data for the students' attitudes toward mathematics as defirA by
their perception index. The follewing results were observed for Oklahoma:
Average mathematics proficiency was highest tbr students who were in the
"stmngly agree" category and lowest for students who were in the
"undecided, disagree, strongly disagree' category.
About o+,e-quarter of the students (29 percent) were in the "strongly
agree" category (perception index of 1).
This compares to 27 percent
across the nation.
Some of the students in Oklahoma (20 percent), compared to 24 percent
across the nation, were in the "undecided, disagree, or strongly disagree"
category (perception index of 3).
" National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics
(Reston, V A: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 198V,Lj
78
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
TABLE 27
I Students' Perceptions of Mathematics
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
19190 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
West
Nation
IStudent "perception index" groups
Strongly agree
("perception index" of 1)
Agm
("perception index" of 2)
Undecided, diugree, strengly disagree
("perception index" of 3)
1
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Pensentage
end
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
29 ( 0.9)
27 ( 1.9)
27 ( 1.3)
271 ( 1.8)
273 ( 3.9)
271 ( 1.9)
51 ( 0.9)
48 ( 1.5)
49 ( 1.0)
262 ( 1.3)
262 ( 2.4)
262 ( 1.7)
20 ( 1.0)
25 ( 2.1)
24 ( 1.2)
254 (
1.9)
249 ( 2.9)
251 ( 1.8)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t. 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
SUMMARY
Some out-of-school factors cannot be changed, but others can be altered in a positive way
to influence a student's learning and motivation. Partnerships among students, parents,
teachers, and the larger community can affect the educational environment in the home,
resulting in more out-of-school reading and an increased value placed on educational
achievement, among other desirable outcomes.
The data related to out-of-school factors show that:
Stuients in Oklahoma who had four type
of reading materials (an
encyclopedia, newspapers magazines, and more than 25 books) at home
showed higher mathematics proficiency than did students with zero to two
types of materials.
This is similar to the results for the nation, where
students who had all four types of materials showed higher mathematics
proficiency than did students who had zero to two types.
S 4
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
79
Oklahoma
Relatively few of the eighth-grade public-school students in Oklahoma
(10 percent) watched one hour or less of television each day; 14 percent
watched six hours or more. Average mathematics proficiency was lowest
for students who spent six hours or more watching television each day.
About half of the students in Oklahoma (45 percent) did not miss any
school days in the month prior to the assessment, while 22 percent missed
three days or more.
Average mathematics proficiency was lowest for
students who missed thret or more days of school.
About one-quarter of the students (29 percent) were in the "strongly
agree" category relating to students' perceptions of mathematics. Average
mathematics proficiency was highest for students who were in the "strongly
agree" category and lowest for students who were in the "undecided,
disagrm strongly disagree" category.
SO
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
ME NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
PROCEDURAL APPENDIX
This appendix provides an overview of the technical details of the 1990 Trial State
Assessment Program. It includes a discussion of the assessment desigp, 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, aw e. the items were developed through a
similar process managed by Educational Test;hig 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 1990 Trial State Assessment was based on a focused balanced incomplete block (BIB)
spiral matrix des;gn -- a design that enables broad coverage of mathematics content while
minimizing the burden for any one student.
In total, 137 cognitive mathematics items were developed for the assessment, including 35
open-ended items. The first step in implementing the BIB design required dividing the
entire set of mathematics items into seven units called blocks. Each block was designed to
be completed in 15 minutes,
E; 6
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
SI
Oldahoma
The blocks were then assembled into assessment booklets so that each booklet contained
two background questionnaires -- the first consisting of general background questions and
the second consisting of mathematics background questions -- and three blocks of cognitive
mathematics items. Students were given five minutes to complete each of the background
questionnaires and 45 minutes to complete the three 15-minute blocks of matheirstics
items. Thus, the entire assessment required approximately 55 minutes of student time.
In accordance with the BIB design, the blocks were assigned to the assessment booklets so
that each block appeared in exactly three booklets and each block appeared with every
other block in one booklet. Seven assessment booklets were used in the Trial State
Assessment Program. The booklets were spiraled or interleaved in a systematic sequence
so that each booklet appeared an appropriate number of times in the sample. The students
within an assessment session were assiped 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.
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 *3 this report.1
The assessment framework consisted of two dimensions: mathematical content areas and
abilities. The five content areas assessed were Numbers and Operations; Measurement;
Geometry; Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability; and Algebra and Functions (see
Figure A1). The three mathematical ability areas assessed were Conceptual Understanding,
Procedural Knowledge, and Problem Solving (see Figure A2).
Data Analysis and Scales
Once the assessments had been conducted and information from the assessment booklets
had been compiled in a database, the assessment data were weighted to match known
population proportions and adjusted for nonresponse. Analyses were then conducted to
determine
percentages of students who gave various responses to each coggitive 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 subpopulatiow, 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 in the assessment.
National Assessment of Educational Progress, Mathematics Objectives. 1990 Assessment (Pr nceton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service, 1988).
82
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
FIGURE Al I Content Areas Assessed
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 emphasizeil.
Students' abilities in estimation, mental computation, use of calculatorS, generalization of numerical
p earns, and verification of results are also included.
I Measurement
1
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 eencepts, 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
r2quiring
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.
1Ge;metry
This content area focuses on students' knowledge of geometric figures and relationships and on their skills
in working with this knowledge. These skills are important at all levels of Schooling as well as in practical
applications.
Students need to be able to model and visualize geometric figures in one, two, and three
dimensions and to communicate geometric ideas. In addition, Students should be able to use informal
reasoning to establish geometric relationships.
Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability
This content area focuses on data representation and analysts across all disciplines and reflects the
importance and prevalence of these activities in our society. Statistical knowledge and the ability to
Interpret data are necessary skills in the contemporary world. Questions emphasize appropriate methods
for gathering data, the visual exploration of data, and the development and evaluation of arguments based
on data analysis.
Algebra and Functions
This content area is broad in scope, covering algebraic and functional concepts In more Informal.
exploratory ways for the eighth-grade Trial State Assessment. Proficiency in this concept area requires
both manipulative facility and conceptual 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.
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
ME NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
FIGURE A2
I
Mathematical Abilities
The following three categories of mathemecal abilities are not tO be COnstrued as hierarchical.
For
example, problem solving Involves interactions between conceptual knowledge and procedural ski))
'Jut
what is considered complex problem solving at one grade level may De considered conc....ual
understanding or procedural knOWledge at another.
Conceptual Understanding
Students demonstrate conceptual understanding in mathematics when they provide evidence that they can
recognize, label, and generate examples and counterexamples of concepts; can use and interrelate models,
diagrams, and varied representations of concepts: can identify and apply principles: know and can apply
facts and definitions: can compare, Contrast, and integrate related concepts and principles: can recognize,
interpret, and apply the signs, symbols, and terms used to represent concepts: and can Interpret the
assumptions and relations involving 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
=11.1.
In problem solving, students are required to use their reasoning and analytic abilitiee when they encounter
new situations.
Problem solving includes the ability to recognize arid formulate problems: determine the
sufficiency and consistency of data: use strategies, data, models, and relevant mathem tics: generate,
extend, and modify procedures: use reasoning
(i.e.,
spatial,
inductive,
deductive, statistical, and
proportional): and judge the reasonableness and correctness of solutions.
84
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
A scale ranging from 0 to 500 was created to report performance for each content area.
Each content-area scale was based on the distribution of student performance across all
three grades assessed in the 1990 national assessment (grades 4, 8, and 12) and had a mean
of 250 and a standard deviation of 50.
A composite scale was created as an overall measure of students' mathematics proficiency.
The composite scale was a weighted average of the five content area scales, where the
weight for each content area was proportional to the relative importance assigned to the
content area in the specifications developed by the Mathematics Objectives Panel.
Scale Anchoring
Scale anchoring is a method for defining performance along a scale. Traditionally,
performance on educational scales has been defined by norm-referencing -- that is, by
comparing students at a particular scale level to other students. In contrast, the NAEP
scale anchoring is accomplished by describing what students at selected levels know and
can do.
The scale anchoring process for the 1990 Trial State Assessment began with the selection
of four levels -- 200, 250, 300, and 350 -- on the 0-to-500 scale. Although proficiency levels
below 200 anti above 350 could theoretically have been defmed, they were not because so
few students performed at the extreme ends of the scale. Any attempts to define levels at
the extremes would therefore have been highly speculative.
To define performance at each of the four levels on the scale, NAEP analyzed sets of
mathematics items from the 1990 assessment that discriminated well between adjacent
levels. The criteria for selecting CI Ise "benchmark" items were as follows:
To define performance at level 200, items were chosen that were answered
correctly by at leas' 65 percent of the students whose proficiency was at or
near 200 on the scale.
To define performance at each of the higher levels on the scale, items were
chosen that were: a) answered correctly by at least 65 percent of students
whose proficiency was at or near that level; and b) answered incorrectly by
a majority (at least 50 percent) of the students performing at or near the
next lower level.
The percentage of students at a level who answered the item correctly had
to be at least 30 points higher than the percentage of students at the next
lower level who answered it correctly.
a 0
0
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATL ASSESSMENT
85
Oklahoma
Once these empirically selected sets of questions had been identified, mathematics educators
analyzed the questions and used their expert judgment to characterize the knowledge, skills,
and understandings of students performing at each level. Each of the four proficiency levels
was defmed by describing the types of mathematics questions that most students attaining
that proficiency level would be able to perform successfully. Figure 3 in Chapter 1 provides
a summary of the levels and their characteristic skills. Example questions for each level are
provided in Figure A3, together with data on the estimated proportion of students at or
above each of the four proficiency levels who correctly answered each question.2
Questionnaires for Teachers and Schools
As part of the Trial State Assessment, questionnaires were given to the mathematics
teachers of assessed students and to the principal or other administrator in each
participating school.
A Policy Analysis and Use Panel drafted a set of policy issues and guidelines and made
recommendations concerning the design of these questionnaires. For the 1990 assessment,
the teacher and school questionnaires focused on six educational areas: curriculum,
instructional practices, teacher qlifications, educational standards and reform, school
conditions, and conditions outside of the school that facilitate learning and instruction.
Similar to the development of the materials given to students, the policy guidelines and the
teacher and school questionnaires were prepared through an iterative process that involved
extensive development, field testing, and review by external advisory groups.
MATHEMATICS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
The questionnaire for eighth-grade mathematics teachers consisted of two parts. The first
requested information about the teacher, such as race/ethnicity and gender, as well as
academic degrees held, teaching certification, training in mathematics, and ability to get
instructional resources. In the second part, teachers were asked to provide information on
each class they taught that included one or more students who participated in the Trial
State Assessment Program. The information included, among other things, the amount
of time spent on mathematics instruction and homework, the extent to which textbooks
or worksheets were used, the instructional emphasis placed on different mathematical
topics, and the use of various instructional approaches. Because of the nature of the
sampling for the Trial
'ate Assessment, the responses to the mathematics teacher
questionnaire do not ric c.essarily represent all eighth-grade mathematics teachers in a state
or territory. Rather, tb y represent the teachers of the particular students being assessed.
2 Since there were insufficient numbers of eighth-grade questions at levels 200 and 350, one of the questions
exemplifying level 200 is from the fourth.grade national assessment and one exemplifying level 350 is from the
twelfth-grade national assessment.
1
86
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
FIGURE A3
I
Example Items for Mathematics Proficiency Levels
Level 200:
Simple Additive Reasoning end Problem Solving with Whole
Numbers
EXAMPLE 1
4 -7 Z1E7 /1-7
/ /
Doi
lbala
\
Mb
0
DM*
7. Linda WI ebb My/ Awe Da roe ea Mg ENO Mims bob et
Ws as dews aim Elk tib auk biz will Es bed At kb Ewe.
lob& be lea Sow ft fumes bib is id
CD The Sex Wok dr saw* bob
CD TM Ms wadi lie pit bob
The Mb MA she Mew bib
Sod cart oil
EXAMPLE 2
DOXIII Of NUT HOOD
AT FARAIVAT FARM
Ma
Dm
TAII
Tbs
Dap OrieDINA
Cbrable
O. Haw soy Was of asoos tem *bog as Tbsadayl
CD 55
OD 60
OD To
SD SO
CD SO
al I Ass'. bac
ME 1990 NAB? TRIAL, srms ASSESSMENT
Grade 4
Overall Percentege
Percentage Carted
222
UR
Se
91
Grade 4
Oman Perventage
Percentage Correct
222
224
75
91
Grade
Coverall Percentage
Percentage Coned
222
222
1147
92
Correct 73%
for Anchor Levels:
Sig
100
Correct eft
for Mellor Levels:
224
222
100
Canict SS%
for Mchor Levels:
222
es
wo
81
Oklahoma
FIGURE A3
I
Example Items for Mathematics Proficiency Levels
(continued)
Level 250:
Simple Multiplicative Reasoning and Two-Step Problem Solving
EXAMPLE 1
7. What is the valuc of a + S when n
3 t
knower
EXAMPLE 2
Grade 8
Overall Percentage Correct 78%
Percentage WIWI for Anchor Levels:
aro
02
Ilili
2151
28
afif
98
98
MR COLOR WWII'
=LIS
Grade 8
deo el
Poem,
LIM
11
Sem
Overall Percentage Correct 73%
Percentage Correct for Anchor Lavoie:
Twit
222
212
2411
2§2
Me talk shave shows the Nis)s
o rimy
hate o4a.
tht eigek
21
88
92
92
below, mkt cock preph ut Airman dee dew in thetable. Label earl
pat oi the dock amph loth dbe mon Mt**Wt.
Dot vow we the EA:taster so dots queetiose
0 Vet
0 No
EXAMPLE 3
0. Katlikew is packing biescballs too boxes. twit box holds 6 baseball,. Sim
has 24 balls. Wbidi number setwasce will kelp bat tint, out hew way
boxes 04 will Dag;
CD 74
6 w
tr 24 4-
0
24 + 6 ,w 0
op 24
6 w
don't. bum.
Grade 8
Overall Percentage Correct 77%
Percentage Correct for Mchor Levels:
294
20,2
229
222
37
71
95
loo
ME 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklalsoa
FIGURE A3
Example Items for Mathematics Proficiency Levels
(continued)
Level 300:
Rationing and Problem Solving involving Fractions, Decimals,
Percents, Elementary Geometric Properties, and Simple
Algebraic Manipulations
EXAMPLE I
N. WW1 of the foileneteg shawl the emit et Moos the ohm tame. sew
the Lew it
cct
EXAMPLE 2
ca)
he the nedel weia ihn dam le WNW& b eme 9 lees hal i PIPPosesed
MY auk amid I huhu hos& II eh* woe We is reed, a
loes SS kw
hish wooed he tereseeted hy a sole motel tow may huhu hesh2
re we the eateadetee ea gee otesiest
Ye
ON.
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Grade S
Overall Percentage Gwent 80%
Paventage Conict for Anchor Levi*
210
AM
33
49
77
90
Grade 12
Overall Percentage Correct 75%
Percentage Correct for Anchoi Levels:
2QQ
2:41
MI
IN
48
79
05
Grade 8
Overall Percentage Correct 50%
Percentage Coned for Ancitor Levels:
aZi
Mt
Mg
17
46
86
90
Oklahoma
FIGURE A3
I
Example Items for Mathematics Proficiency Levels
(continued)
Level 350:
Reasoning and Problem Solving Involving Geometric
Relationships, Algebraic Equations, and Beginning Statistics and
Probability
EXAMPLE
gustier. WV Mu wilts Wen. At %%cm fai dm-14nm
a
I
a
5
W it tith paten o do4-Urseswowwwwwt. how sway dots
lin in du
1011sh fivIal
CilD 100
CP 101
45 Mil
0 200
2C1
EXAMPLE 2
it Eutaw bow you lona row saswor so question 16.
Answar
Grade 8
Overall Peroentsge Correct 34%
Percentage Correct for Anchor Levels:
Et2
222
13
19
33
88
Grade 12
Overti Percentage Correct: 49%
Percentage Correct for Anchor Levels:
2212
21711
22
48
90
Grade 8
Ovetall Percentag Correct: 15%
Percentage Correct for Anchor Levels:
Zga
2fa
NO
%IQ
1
4
28
74
Grade 12
Overall Percentage Correct: 27%
Percentage Correct for Anchor Lwow:
at&
2D2
3
22
74
t
90
ME 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS AND POLICIES QUESTIONNAIRE
An extensive school questionnaire was completed by principals or other administrators in
the schools participating in the Trial State Assessment. In addition to questions about the
individuals who completed the questionnaires, there were questions about school policies,
course offerings, and special priority areas, among other topics.
It is important to note that in this report, as in all NAEP reports, the student is always the
unit of analysis, even when information from the teacher or school questionnaire is being
reported. Having the student as the unit of analysis makes it possible to describe the
instruction received by representative samples of eighth-grade students in public schools.
Although this approach may provide a different perspective from that which would be
obtained by simply collecting information from a sample of eighth-grade mathematics
teachers or from a sample of schools, it is consistent with NAEP's goal of providing
information about the educational context and peiformance of students.
Estimating Variability
The statistics reported by NAEP (average proficiencies, percentages of students at or above
particular scale-score 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. These estimates are based on the
performance of a carefully selected, representative sample 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 gaup 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 Assesiment
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 subp-oup
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.
r u
ME 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
91
Oklahoma
In addition to reporting estimates of average proficiencies, proportions of students at or
above particular scale-score levels, and proportions of students giving various responses to
background questions, this report also provides estimates of the magnitude of the
uncertainty associated with these statistics. Thew measums 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 certain way or the proportion
of students in certain racial/ethnic groups) reflect cnly sampling error. NAEP uses a
methodology called the jackknife procedure to estimate these standard errors.
Drawing Inferences from the Results
One of the goals of the Trial State Assessment Program is to make inferences about the
overall population of eighth-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 tht anrertainty 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 represents a 95 percent confidence interval for the corresponding
population quantity. This means that with approximately 95 percent certainty, the average
performance of the entire population of interest (e.g., all eighth-grade students in public
schools in a state or territory) is within ± 2 standard errors of the sample mean.
As an example, suppose that the average mathematics proficiency of the students in a
particular state's sample were 256 with a standard error of 1.2. A 95 percent confidence
interval for the population quantity would be as follows:
Mean ± 2 standard errors = 256 ± 2 . (1.2) = 256 ± 2.4 =
256 - 2.4 and 256 + 2.4 = 253.6, 258.4
Thus, one can conclude with 95 percent certainty 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 fIr percentages, provided that the
percentages are not extremely large (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
arc quite complicated.
rt
92
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
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 defined by students' responses to background
questions such as About how much time do you usually spend each day on mathematics
homework? Still other subgroups are defined by the responses of the assessed students'
mathematics teachers to questims 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 who 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 who 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
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 woups 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 goups ± 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 statistically significant (different) at the .05 level.
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
93
Oklahoma
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:
Grou p
Average
Proficiency
Standard
Error
Female
259
2.0
Male
255
2.1
The difference between the estimates of the mear proficiencies of females and males is four
points (259 - 255). The standard error of this difference is
N1202
.
+ 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 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.3
Throughout this report, when the mean proficiency or proportions for two groups were
compared, procedures like the one described above were used to araw 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 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 ofthe standard errors. Conversely, a difference that appears to
be large may not be statistically significant.
The procedure described above (esnecially 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.
r
z
94
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
The procedures described in this section, and the certainty ascribed to intervals (e.g., a 95
percent confidence interval), are based on statistical theory that assumes that only one
confidence interval or test of statistical significance is being performed. However, in each
chapter of this report, many different groups are being compared (i.e., multiple sets of
confidence intervals are being analyzed). When one considers sets of confidence intervals,
statistical theory indicates that the certainty associzted 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 small 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.
Minimum Subgroup Sample Sizes
Results for mathematics proficiency and background variables were tabulated and reported
for groups defined by race/ethnicity and type of school community, as well as by gender
and parents' education level. NAEP collects data for five racial/ethnic subgroups (White,
Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and American Indian/Alaskan Native) and four
types of communities (Advantaged Urban, Disadvantaged Urban, Extreme Rural, and
Other Communities). 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 backgound variable p:sults. 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 size of 62 students was required. This number was
determined by computing the sample size required to detect an effect size of .2 with a
probability of .8 or greater.
100
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
95
Oklahoma
The effect size of .2 pettains to the true difference between the average proficiency of the
subgroup in question and the average proficiency for the total eighth-rade public-school
populaticin in the state or territory, divided by the standard &ciation 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
v..-
Description of Text in Report
p = 0
None
0 < p
... 10
Relatively few
10 < p
.... 20
Some
20 < p S. 30
About one-quarter
30 < p 5.. 44
Less than half
44 < p ,s 55
About half
55 < p ... 69
More than half
69 < p 5, 79
About three-quarters
79 < p ..5. 89
Many
89 < p < 100
Almost all
p = 100
All
n 1
96
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL. STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
THE NATION'S
REPORT
CARD
DATA APPENDIX
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, vpe of community, parents' education level, and gender.
1n2
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
97
Oklahoma
TABLE A5
I Students' Reports on the Mathematics Class
I They Are Taking
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1900 NAEP TRIAL
Eighth-grade
STATE ASSESSMENT
Mathematics
Pra-algebra
Alf lebra
TOTAL
Poventage
and
Pro Ramey
Percentage
and
Proficiencr
Percentage
and
Prandancy
State
53 ( 2.7)
30 ( 2.7)
13 ( 1.1)
254 ( 1.5)
267 ( 1.8)
290 ( 2.8)
Nation
62 ( 2.1)
19 ( 1.9)
15 ( 1.2)
251 ( 1.4)
272 ( 2.4)
296 ( 2.4)
RACE/ETNNICITY
White
State
51 ( 3.0)
32 ( 3.0)
14 ( 1.1)
261 ( 1.6)
270 ( 1.9)
295 ( 2.5)
Nation
59 ( 23)
21 ( 2.4)
17 ( 1.5)
259 ( 1.8)
277 ( 22)
300 ( 2.3)
Slack
State
85
4.4)
23 ( 4,2)
7 ( 1.8)
231 ( 3.0)
*** ( *44 )
Nation
72 ( 4.7)
16 ( 3.0)
232 ( 3.4)
246 ( 8.4)
(
**lb )
Hispanic
State
67 ( 6.1)
17 ( 4.6)
1
( 2.9)
242 ( 3.1)
11-.1
114*
Nation
75 ( 4.4)
13 ( 3.9)
6 ( 1.5)
240 ( 2.4)
)
American Indian
State
58 ( 4.2)
29 ( 4.4)
249 ( 3 0)
(
Nation
ti14 ( 5.7)
8 ( 7.2)
5 ( 2.7)
t. (
)
TYPE OF COMMUNITY
Advantaged urban
State
57 (10.9)
24 (12.0)
16 ( 3.5)
275 ( 3.9)1
m ( ,,,,,)
." ( ***)
Nation
55 ( 9.4)
22 ( 7.9)
21 ( 4,4)
289 ( 2.5)1
m ( m)
m ( ...)
Disadvantaged urban
State
46 (12.6)
43 (13.1)
6 ( 2.4)
239 (
7.6)1
258 ( 3.5)1
... ( ,....)
Nation
65 ( 6.0)
16 ( 4.1)
14 ( 3.3)
240 ( 4.0)1
m ( ....)
287 ( 4,2)1
Extreme neat
State
59 ( 7.6)
29 ( 7.5)
7 ( 2.3)
254 ( 3.5)
261 ( 3.8)1
m ( 4.)
Nation
74 ( 4.5)
14 ( 50)
7 ( 2.2)
249 (
3.1)1
m ( m)
mi, ( m)
Other
State
51 ( 3.6)
30 ( 3.2)
15 (
1.5)
254 ( 1.5)
269 ( 2.4)
293 ( 3.2)
Nation
61 ( 2.2)
20 ( 2.1)
18 ( 1.4)
251 ( 2.0)
272 ( 2.8)
294 ( 2.7)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within
2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample. The percentages may not total 100 percent because a small number of students
reported taking other mathematics courses.
! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow
accurate determination of the variability of this estimated mean profi iency.
*** Sample size is insufficient to
permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
r J
98
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
TABLE A5
I Students' Reports on the Mathematics Class
(continued)
They Are Taking
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCf
I 1990 NAEP TRIAL
Eighth-grade
STATE ASSESSMENT
Mathematics
Pre-algebra
Algebra
I
TOTAL
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiencif
Percentage
and
Proficiency
State
53 ( 2.7)
30 ( 2.7)
13 ( 1.1)
254 ( 1$)
287 ( 1.8)
290 ( 2 8)
Nation
62 (
19 ( 1.9)
15 ( 12)
251 ( 1.4)
272 ( 2.4)
295 ( 2.4)
PARENTS' EDUCATION
HS non-graduate
State
62 ( 4.3)
2$ ( 4.5)
8 ( 2.2)
243 ( 2.9)
**1
Vi
Nation
77 (
241 (
3.7)
2.1)
13 ( 3.4)
...)
3 ( 1.1)
(
**dr)
HS graduate
State
81 ( 33)
28 ( 3.3)
8 ( 1.1)
247 ( 1,8)
257 ( 22)
Nation
70 ( 2.8)
18 ( 24)
8 ( 1.1)
249 ( 1.9)
266 ( 33)
277 ( 5.2)
Semi college
State
54 ( 4.1)
29 ( 3.8)
13 ( 2.4)
259 ( 2.1)
26$ ( 23)
284 ( 4.8)
Nation
80 ( 3.1)
21 ( 2.9)
15 ( 1.9)
257 ( 2.1)
276 ( 2.8)
295 ( 3.2)
College graduate
State
45 ( 2.8)
33 ( 2.8)
18 ( 1.5)
282 ( 2.3)
274 ( 1.8)
300 ( 2.5)
Nation
53 ( 2.7)
21 ( 2.3)
24 ( 1.7)
259 ( 1.5)
278 ( 2.8)
303 ( 2.3)
GENDER
Male
State
55 ( 2.9)
29 ( 2.7)
13 ( 1.1)
257 ( 1.8)
269 ( 22)
292 ( 3.4)
Nation
63 ( 2.1)
18 ( 1.8)
15 (
1.2)
252 ( 1.6)
275 ( 2.9)
299 ( 2.5)
Female
State
62 (
2.8)
31 ( 3.1)
13 ( 1.4)
252 ( 1.8)
284 ( 1.9)
288 ( 3.1)
Nation
61 ( 2.6)
20 ( 2.3)
15 ( 1.7)
251 ( 1.5)
269 ( 3.0)
293 ( 2.6)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value ft.
the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample. The percentages may not total 100 percent because a small number of students
reported taking other mathematics courses. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer
than 62 students).
in 4
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
99
Oklahoma
TABLE A6
Teachers' Reports on the Amount of Time
Students Spent on Mathematics Homework
Each Day
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1990 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
Non
16 Minutes
30 MInutas
46 Minutes
An Hour or
Mors
44M*=04.4k
TOTAL
State
Nation
RACE/ETHNICITY
Percentage
mW
Proficiency
2 ( 0.5)
( 0.3)
( 0.4)
"4 ( 4")
( 0.3)
"4 ( 4")
2 ( 1.1)
1 ( 0.7)
6 ( 3.5)
( "4)
1
( 0.8)
4" ( "4)
2 ( 1.0)
4" ( **)
0 ( 0.0)
44. ( 4**)
2 (
1.6)
( 444)
1 ( 0.9)
1 ( 1.0)
*MO
."
1 ( 0.8)
0 ( 0.0)
444 ( 4")
2 ( 0.6)
4" ( 0")
( 0.4)
4.* (
Percentage
and
Proficiency
24 ( 3.2)
258 ( 2.2)
43 ( 4.2)
256 ( 2.3)
25 ( 3.4)
262 ( 2.1)
39 ( 4.5)
266 ( 2.2)
22 ( 5.0)
**11
56 ( 7.8)
232 ( 3.1)
24 ( 6.2)
46 ( 7.8)
245 (
3.0)1
22 ( 5.5)
74 (31.9)
21 ( 4.9)
(S)
81 (11.3)
273 ( 3.1)1
32 (16.3)
41 (12.6)
236 ( 2.1)1
15 ( 7.1)
259 ( 5.5)1
68 (14.9)
253 ( 5.4)1
29 ( 4.1)
260 ( 2.2)
37 ( 4.3)
256 ( 3.1)
Percentage
and
PrO6Cieney
54 ( 2.9)
263 ( 1.7)
.43 ( 4.3)
2es ( 2.6)
54 ( 3.1)
268 ( 1.8)
4$ ( 5.1)
270 ( 2.7)
56 ( 4.9)
239 ( 2.7)
40 ( 8.7)
245 C 5.3)
51 ( 8.4)
34 ( 6.8)
251 ( 4.2)1
59 ( 6.4)
256 ( 3.9)
22 (28.2)
.**)
63 ( 7.1)
278 ( 3.0)i
32 ( 8.6)
65 (16.1)
258 ( 2.4)1
36 ( 9.4)
253 ( 9.0)1
58 ( 9.0)
257 ( 4.2)1
14 (10.9)
49 ( 3.5)
264 ( 2.2)
49 ( 5.1)
265 ( 2.5)
Percentage
and
Proficiency
11 ( 1.7)
273 ( 3.4)
10 ( 1.9)
272 ( 5.7)1
11 ( 1.9)
280 ( 2A)
11 ( 2.4)
277 ( 7.8)1
10 ( 3.4)
...)
3 ( 12)
11 ( 3.7)
IIHr
(
41
13 ( 2.9)
10 ( 3.3)
*4.0 )
0 ( 0.0)
6 ( 2.4)
..)
5 ( 3.4)
2 ( 1.3)
12 ( 5.9)
(
15 ( 5.6)
265 ( 73)1
8 ( 5.6)
11 ( 2.2)
276 ( 4.4)1
10 ( 2.4)
276 ( 8.6)1
Percentage
and
Proficiency
O ( 2.0)
271 ( 41)1
4 ( 0.9)
276 ( 5.1)1
10 ( 2.0)
277 ( 3.7)1
4 ( 0.9)
279 ( 5.8)1
11 ( 4.3)
2 ( 0.8)
8 ( 4.1)
7 ( 2.1)
0.1.)
( 2.6)
.4.4)
4 ( 4.8)
*0*
( '44)
9 ( 5.1)
( 0.0)
0*-e)
0 ( 0.0)
10 ( 6.2)
( ***)
14 ( 6.0)
4-0 ( *4
10 ( 7.3)
9 ( 2.6)
276
5.6/1
4 ( 1.1)
282 (11.5)1
Mite
State
Nation
Mack
State
Nation
Hispanic
State
Nation
Amorican Mien
State
Nation
TYPE OF COMMUNITY
Advantaged urban
State
Nation
Dludvantagsd urban
State
Nation
Extreme rural
State
Nation
Other
State
Nation
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample. ! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. 0°0 Sample size is insufficient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
JkJ
1 r
100
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSM ENT
Oklahoma
TABLE A6
(continued)
Teachers' Reports on the Amount of Time
Students Spent on Mathematics Homework
Each Day
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1990 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
None
15 Minutes
30 Minutes
45 Minutes
1
An Hour or
More
TOTAL
Percentage
and
Proficiency
2 ( 0.5)
( ***)
3 (
1.5)
( *Ire)
1 ( 0.8)
4* (
*** ( ***)
1 ( 0.6)
(
( 0.9)
***
( tit* )
***
( ***)
f t/
( 0.3)
2 ( 0.6)
ttt ( **)
1
( 0.4)
( ..**)
Percentage
and
Proficiency
24 ( 3.2)
258 ( 2.2)
43 ( 4.2)
258 ( 2.3)
24 ( 5.2)
(
49 ( 6.3)
240 ( 2.8)
24 ( 3.6)
248 ( 2.8)
43 ( 5.2)
249 ( 3.1)
27 ( 4$)
259 ( 2.9)1
44 ( 5.4)
265 ( 2.6)
22 ( 3.2)
267 ( 2.6)
40 ( 4.7)
265 ( 2$)
25 ( 3.4)
260 ( 3.0)
44 ( 4.4)
257 ( 2.9)
24 ( 3.3)
257 ( 2.1)
41 ( 4.4)
255 ( 2.3)
Percentage
Proficiency
64 ( 2.9)
263 ( 11)
43 ( 4,3)
256 ( 2.6)
56 ( 4.9)
249 ( 3.3)
40 ( 5.1)
246 ( 3.7)
57 ( 3.9)
254 ( 2.0)
44 ( 5.8)
258 ( 2.7)
52 ( 4.3)
269 ( 2.3)
43 ( 5.8)
270 ( 3.6)
54 ( 2,9)
270 ( 1.9)
44 ( 4.1)
277 ( 3.0)
54 ( 3.1)
266 ( 1.9)
43 ( 4.3)
268 ( 2.9)
53 ( 3.1)
259 ( 2.0)
43 ( 4.7)
264 ( 2.8)
Percentage
and
Proficiency
11 ( 1.7)
273 ( 3.4)
10 ( 1.9)
272 ( 5.7)1
*** ( ***)
10 ( 2.0)
0.0.* ( *44)
( G")
11 ( 2.4)
7 ( 2.1)
12 ( 1.9)
283 ( 4A)
11 ( 2.3)
287 ( 6.1)1
10 ( 1.0)
274 ( 4.2)
9 ( 1.9)
273 ( 7.3)1
11 ( 1.9)
272 ( 3.9)
11 ( 2.0)
272 ( 5.7)1
Percentage
and
Proficiency
9 ( 2.0)
271 ( 4.8)1
4 ( 0.9)
278 ( 5.1)1
( ***)
4 ( 1.3)
8 ( 2.2)
***
***)
3 ( 1.0)
*** ( "")
8 ( 2.6)
( 0.1
4 ( 1.0)
**)
12 ( 2.5)
282 ( 5.8)1
5 ( 1.3)
9 ( 2.1)
273 ( 6.2)1
5 ( 1.3)
279 ( 7.7)1
10 ( 2.0)
269 ( 4.2)1
State
Nation
PARENTS EDUCATION
HS non-graduate
State
Nation
HS fraduat
State
Nation
Some college
State
Nation
College graduate
State
Nation
GENDER
Male
State
Nation
Female
State
Nation
.11.1111
The standard errors at the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the valtic for the entire popuI3tion is within
2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
! Interpret with caution
the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variabihty of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
G
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
101
Oklahoma
TABLE A7
I Students' Reports on the Amount of Time They
I Spent on Mathematics Homework Each Day
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1990 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
None
15 Mkudes
30 Minutes
45 Minutes
An Hour or
More
TOTAL
Percentage
and
Proficiency
10 ( 0.7)
264 ( 2.6)
9 ( 0.6)
251 ( 2.6)
11 ( 0.8)
268 ( 2.8)
10 ( 1.0)
258 ( 3.4)
( 1.5)
4,44)
( 1.5)
10 ( 3.0)
( ***)
12 ( 1.8)
** (
)
( e")
13 ( 5.3)
( ***)
8 ( 1.9)
8 ( 24)
( .)
***
(
12 ( 3.7)
*** ( "")
10 ( 2.3)
"1' ( .")
***
(
10 ( 0.8)
285 ( 3.5)
9 ( 1.0)
250 ( 3.8)
nercentage
and
Proficiency
24 ( 1.1)
267 ( 1.9)
31 ( 2.0)
204 ( 1.9)
24 ( 1.2)
273 ( 1.8)
33 ( 2.4)
270 ( 1.9)
29 ( 3.5)
( 4441
26 ( 2.5)
241 ( 3.8)
17 ( 3.8)
v.*
27 ( 3.0)
246 ( 3.6)
21 ( 3.2)
30 (10.0)
.44 ( 44,)
41 (12.5)
276 ( 3.0)1
25 ( 3.8)
(
24 ( 3.3)
263 ( 4.9)1
23 ( 2.4)
264 ( 4.6)
38 ( 4.6)
260 ( 34)1
23 ( 1.5)
268 ( 2.3)
30 ( 1.8)
263 ( 2.3)
Pertemtnes
wd
Proldency
29 ( 1.1)
263 ( 1.8)
S2 ( 12)
263 ( 1.9)
30 ( 1.3)
267 ( 1.6)
32 ( 1.3)
270 ( 2.1)
24 ( 3.4)
33 ( 2.7)
237 ( 3.5)
24 ( 4.5)
30 ( 2.6)
248 ( 3.4)
29 ( 4.0)
27 ( $.7)
26 ( 2.4)
*IN (
31 ( 6.6)
280 ( 4.6)1
4,1
31 ( 3.0)
247 ( 4.7)i
29 ( 3.0)
258 ( 3.4)
31 ( 2.9)
255 ( 5.1)1
30 ( 1.3)
265 ( 2.1)
32 ( 1.3)
264 ( 2.3)
Piromiagn
and,
Proficiency
( 0.7)
254 ( 2.1)
16 ( 1.0)
205 ( 1.9)
1$ ( 0.8)
269 ( 2.2)
15 ( 0.9)
277 ( 2.2)
20 ( 2.3)
Mb* ( drirl
18 ( 2.3)
240 ( 3.6)
17 ( 3.0)
(
17 ( 2.1)
241 ( 4.3)
24 (14.2)
(
12 ( 3.3)
*41
14 ( 2.3)
20 ( 1.9)
250 ( 4.8)i
19( 2.1)
256 ( 4.9)1
18 ( 3.8)
17 ( 1.0)
266 ( 2.2)
15( 1.1)
267 ( 2.1)
PerangliP
and
Prelidency
20 ( 1.0)
257 ( 1.7)
12 ( 1.1)
256 ( 3.1)
18 ( 1.1)
264 ( 1.8)
( 1.3)
268 ( 3.3)
20 ( 2.2)
(
1 8 ( 1.9)
232 ( 3.7)
ea+ ( wen
14 ( 1.7)
24 ( 3.9)
.641
6 ( 0.4)
*** ( ***)
14 ( 3.0)
26 ( 4.2)
11 )
14 ( 2.2)
19 ( 2.2)
248 ( 3.7)
20 ( 1.4)
261 ( 2.2)
13( 1.1)
258 ( 3.6)
State
'Nation
RACE/ETHNICI
White
State
Nation
Slack
State
Nation
Hispanic
State
Nation
American Indian
State
Nation
TYPE OF COMMUNITY
Advantaged urban
State
Nation
Disadvantaged urban
State
Nation
Extreme rural
State
Nation
Other
State
Nation
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
it can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
f Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
1
7
102
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma =
TABLE A7
I Students' Reports on the Amount of Time They
(continued)
I Spent on Mathematics Homework Each Day
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1990 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
None
16 Minutes
30 Minutes
_
46 Minutes
-
An 'lour or
More
TOTAL
Pertlentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proedeney
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Pamentage
and
Proficiency
StAte
10 ( 0.7)
24 ( 1.1)
29 (
1.1)
16 ( 0.7)
20 ( 1.0)
264 ( 2.6)
267 (
1.9)
263 (
1.8)
264 ( 2.1)
257 ( 1.7)
Wion
9 ( 0.8)
31 ( 2.0)
32 (
1.2)
16 (
1.0)
12 ( 1.1)
251 ( 2.8)
264 (
1.9)
263 (
1.9)
266 (
1.9)
256 ( 3.1)
PARENTS' EDUCATION
NS mit-graduate
State
19 (
S.*
( 3.8)
+61
29 ( 4.3)
)
16 ( 3.0)
.41
Nation
17 ( 3.0)
26 ( 3.3)
34 ( 4.4)
246 ( 4.0)
246 ( 2.6)
tit ( A.*/
fire)
HS graduate
State
11 ( 1.3)
22 (
1.7)
29 (
2.0)
18 ( 1.3)
19 ( 1.9)
258 (
3.8)
255 ( 3.1)
253 ( 2.6)
251 ( 2.7)
246 ( 2.6)
Nation
10 ( 1.7)
33 ( 22)
31 ( 1.9)
16 ( 1.4)
11 ( 1.5)
246 ( 4.2)
259 ( 3.2)
254 ( 2.4)
256 ( 2.8)
244 ( 3.4)
Some college
State
24 ( 2.5)
30 ( 2.3)
16 ( 1.6)
19 ( 1.9)
270 ( 3.4)
284 ( 2.2)
266 ( 4.1)
282 ( 3.6)
Nation
9 (
1.2)
30 ( 2.7)
36 ( 2.1)
14 ( 1.8)
11 ( 1.5)
266 ( 3.0)
266 ( 2.6)
274 ( 3.5)
(
)
College graduate
State
8 (
1.1)
25 ( 1.4)
27 ( 1.5)
19 ( 1.2)
20 ( 1.5)
274 ( 4$)
276 ( 2.4)
273 ( 2.3)
275 ( 2.8)
266 ( 2$)
Nation
7 ( 0.9)
31 ( 3.4)
31 ( 2.0)
18 ( 1.2)
14 ( 1.9)
265 ( 3.6)
275 ( 2.0)
275 ( 2.5)
?78 ( 32)
271 ( 2.8)
GENDER
Male
State
12 (
1.2)
27 (
1.3)
27 (
1.5)
16 (
1.0)
17 ( 1.2)
265 ( 3.1)
269 ( 2.2)
264 ( 2.2)
268 ( 2.7)
260 ( 2.4)
Nation
11 (
1.1)
34 ( 2.4)
29 (
1.3)
15 ( 1.2)
11 ( 1.4)
255 ( 3.9)
264 ( 2.8)
266 ( 2.4)
265 ( 3.0)
258 ( 4.1)
Female
State
6 ( 0.9)
21 (
1.5)
30 (
1.6)
19 (
1.1)
23 (
1.5)
262 ( 2.9)
265 (
2.5)
262 ( 2.0)
261
2.2)
255 ( 1.9)
Nation
( 0.9)
28 ( 2.0)
35 (
1.7)
17 (
1.0)
13 ( 1.3)
246 ( 4.1)
263 (
6)
260 ( 2 0)
267 ( 2.4)
258 ( 3.3)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
*** Sample size is insufficient to pRrmit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62
students).
1 r
THE 1990 Nr.EP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
103
Oklahoma
TABLE AS
Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given To
Specific Mathematics Content Areas
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1990 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
Numbers and Operations
Measurement
Geometry
Heavy
Emphasis
Little or No
Emphasis
Heavy
Emphasis
Little or No
Emphasis
1
Heavy
Emphasis
.
Little or No
Emphasis
TOTAL
Percentage
and
Proficiency
58 ( 3.6)
263 ( 1.4)
49 ( 32)
260 ( 1.8)
55 ( 3.8)
268 ( 1.6)
48 ( 3.7)
267 ( 2.2)
65 ( 5.5)
240 ( 2.5)
54 ( 7.9)
243 ( 4.3)
59 ( 8.4)
*00 ( *04)
47 ( 8.7)
246 ( 4.6)
70 ( 5.5)
258 ( 2.8)
84 (18.5)
**0
***)
39 ( 8.9)
278 ( 3.5)1
28 (13.0)
75 ( 9.9)
256 ( 3.7)1
48 (12.1)
255 ( 6311
53 (10.7)
265 ( 5.1)'
53 (12.4)
257 ( 7.1)1
58 ( 4.5)
263 ( 1.5)
52 ( 4.1)
260 ( 2.3)
Percentage
and
Proficiency
9 ( 1.7)
290 ( 6.7)
15 ( 2.1)
287 ( 3.4)
9 ( 1.8)
296 ( 4.4)1
16 ( 2.4)
289 ( 3.5)
04.0 ( )
11 ( 3.3)
( *01
16j 8.5)
444 ( "4)
8 ( 2.2)
4" ( 4")
6 ( 6.9)
)
2 ( 1,2)
4" ( "4)
16 ( 4.2)
( 0,4)
( 4.0)
40 (
444)
9 ( 4.0)
* **0)
8 ( 4.2)
4" C "41
6 ( 3.8)
)
10 ( 2.4)
300 ( 4.7)1
16 ( 2.7)
286 ( 3.6)
Percentage
and
Proficiency
11 ( 23)
258 ( 3.5)1
17 ( 3.0)
250 ( 5.8)
10 ( 2.4)
262 ( 3.9)1
14 ( 3.4)
259 ( 6.9)1
8 ( 3.2)
«fib vie)
25 ( 7.4)
228 ( 2.8)!
9 ( 3.8)
*4* ( "*)
23 ( 4.1)
*00 ( *00)
***
(
***)
7 ( 8.7)
23 (13.3)
91 7.0)
5 ( 5.0)
*40
.0)
39 (10.3)
238 ( 8.4)1
11 ( 6.4)
4400
**)
6 ( 4.9)
4" ( 4")
9 ( 2.7)
262 ( 3.8)1
16 ( 3.9)
253 ( 7.1)1
Percentage
arl;
Profit lenc)
39 ( 32)
264 ( 3.0)
33 ( 4.0)
272 ( 4.0)
41 ( 3.9)
270 ( 2.8)
30 ( 4.7)
277 ( 4.3)
25 ( 5.4)
23 ( 5.7)
238 ( 8.1)1
40 ( 8.0)
***
0**)
34 ( 5.8)
255 ( 4.4)1
39 ( 7.0)
252 ( 6 8)1
13 (15.5)
4.**
+41
34 (12.4)
288 ( 5.3)1
***)
29 (17.0)
. )
21 ( 6.5)
36 ( 9.3)
254 1 8.2)1
32 (11.7)
265 ( 9.1)1
44 ( 5.0)
266 ( 3.4)
34 ( 5.3)
270 ( 4.6)
Percentage
and
Proficiency
17 ( 2.8)
262 ( 2.4)
28 ( 3.8)
260 ( 3.2)
17 ( 2.8)
267
2.9)
27 ( 4.4)
266 ( 3.3)
20 ( 5.3)
0,00)
33 ( 7.0)
242 ( 5.8)1
14 ( 4.9)
*00 .
27 ( 6.8)
( 4")
16 (19.7)
*40, ( 04*)
38 ( 9.4)
267 ( 4.9)1
5 ( 4.9)
(
*40)
33 (11.8)
248 ( 8.2)1
22 ( 8.4)
256 ( 4.2)1
18 ( 3.8)
283 ( 4.0)'
28 ( 4.6)
260 ( 3.9)
Percentage
artl
Proficiency
28 ( 32)
256 ( 2.7)
21 ( 3.3)
264 ( 5.4)
26 ( 3.3)
263 ( 2.8)
22 ( 3.4)
273 ( 5.8)
29 ( 6.5)
24 ( 7.3)
233 ( 4.7)1
47 ( 7.5)
*44
( *44 )
16 ( 5.5)
000
( 0000)
8 (10.4)
11144
11114 )
19 ( 8.2)
13 ( 3.2)
( .44)
53 (15,4)
250 1 4,4)1
18 ( 7.6)
*** *)
29 ( 8.0)
248 ( 8.5)1
16 ( 7.9)
0-)
26 ( 4.1)
260 ( 3.3)
24 ( 4.3)
265 ( 5.7)
State
Nation
RACE/ETHNICITY
White
State
Nation
Black
State
Nation
Hispanic
State
Nation
American Indian
State
Nation
TYPE OF COMMUNITY
Advantagad urban
State
Nation
Disadvantaged urban
State
Nation
Extreme nral
State
Nation
Other
State
Nation
The standard errors of the estimated stvistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the enure population is within
2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample. The percentages may not total 100 percent because th: "Moderate emphasis"
category is not included.
I Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a
reliable esUmate (fewer than 62 students).
1 C
104
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
TABLE AS
I Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given to
(cnntimied)
I Specific Mathematics Content Areas
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1990 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
Numbers and Operations
Measurement
Geometry
Heavy
Emphasis
....
Little or No
Emphasis
Heavy
Emphasis
Little or No
Emphasis
Heavy
Emphasis
,
Little or No
Emphasis
TOTAL
Percentage
end
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percerstage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
State
58 ( 3.8)
9 ( 1.7)
11 ( 23)
39 ( 3.8)
17 ( 2.8)
28 ( 3.2)
283 ( 1.4)
290 ( 8.7)
258 ( 3.5)1
264 ( 3.0)
262 ( 2.4)
256 ( 2.7)
Nation
49 ( 3.8)
15 ( 2.1)
17 ( 3.0)
33 ( 4.0)
28 ( 3.8)
21 ( 3.3)
263
1.8)
287 ( 3.4)
250 ( 5.8)
272
4.0)
2e0 ( 3.2)
264 ( 5.4)
PARENTS' EDUCATION
HS non-graduate
State
84 (
255 (
6.1)
3.4)
8 (
set ( 2.7)
23 ( s.ol
".)
27 ( 4.6)
***)
Nation
60 (
251 (
6.9)
3.4)
7 ( 2.3)
22 (
( 5.3)
441
25 (
( 5.3)
*1.
12 ( 8.3)
*NI ( *41
HS graduate
State
85 ( 3.9)
8 ( 1.9)
8 ( 22)
36 (
4)
15 ( 3.0)
31 ( 4.2)
256 ( 2.3)
*41
*** )
253 ( 3.e)
250 ( 4.3)
246 ( 2.7)
Nation
55 ( 4.8)
11 ( 2.8)
17 ( 3.9)
27 ( 5.0)
27 ( 4.5)
24 ( 5.1)
259 ( 2.9)
251 ( 6.1)1
253 ( 4.7)1
255 ( 4.2)
246 ( 4.8)!
Some college
State
55 (
288 (
4.8)
2.3)
trint
Vr14 1)
14 ( 3.6)
( 1*i
34 (
265 (
4.1)
4.0)
19 (
264 (
3.8)
4.3)
24 (
253 (
4.0)
5.0)
Nation
47 ( 4.4)
17 ( 3.3)
12 ( 2.7)
39 ( 5.5)
27 ( 5.0)
23 ( 4.1)
265 ( 2.6)
284 ( 4.1)1
279 ( 4.5)
262 ( 4.8)1
270 ( 4.7)
College graduate
State
52 ( 3.9)
11 ( 1.9)
11 ( 2.9)
44 ( 3.8)
17 ( 2.7)
28 ( 3.2)
271 ( 2.2)
299 ( 6,0)
264 ( 5.0)1
276 ( 3.4)
271 ( 2.8)
270 ( 3.6)
Nation
44 ( 4.1)
19 ( 2.4)
16 ( 3.3)
37 ( 3.8)
26 1 3.4)
21 ( 2.9)
269 ( 2.6)
298 ( 3.4)
264 (
7.2)1
283 ( 36)
270 ( 3.8)
260 ( 6.4)
GENDER
Male
State
59 ( 3.6)
8 ( 1.6)
10 ( 2.4)
39 ( 3.8)
16 ( 2.6)
28 ( 3.5)
265 ( 1.8)
289 ( 6.8)1
261 ( 5.0)1
289 ( 3,2)
266 ( 3.3)
259 ( 2.9)
Nation
48 ( 4.1)
14 ( 2.1)
17 ( 3,3)
32 ( 3.9)
29 ( 4.1)
20 ( 3.3)
261 ( 2.5)
287 ( 4.4)
258 ( 6.7)
275 ( 4.8)
283 ( 3.8)
266 ( 6.8)
Female
State
56 ( 4.0)
9 (
1.9)
11 ( 2.7)
39 ( 3.9)
19 ( 3.3)
28 ( 3,4)
261 ( 1.8)
292 (
7.4)1
255 ( 4.1)1
259 ( 3.5)
258 ( 2.9)
254 ( 3.6)
Nation
51 ( 3.9)
15 ( 2.4)
17 ( 3.2)
35 ( 4.3)
27 ( 3.9)
23 ( 3.5)
260 ( 2.0)
286 ( 3.3)
241 ( 5.4)
288 ( 4.1)
256 ( 3.3)
263 ( 5.0)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It ran be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within tt 2 standard errors
of the csumate for the sample. The percentages may not total 100 percent because the "Moderate emphasis"
category is noi included.
! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
105
Oklahoma
TABLE AS
I Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given To
(ccentinued)
Specific Mathematics Content Areas
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1999 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
Data Analysis, Statistics, and
Probability
Algebra and Functions
Heavy Emphasis
Little or No
Emphasis
Little or No
Heavy EmphaZTI
Emphasis
TOTAL
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentile
and
Prolkiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
State
5 ( 1.6)
68 ( 3.7)
55 ( 34)
15 ( 1.9)
264 ( 6.7)1
263 ( 1.9)
270 ( 1.6)
246 ( 2.9)
Nation
14 ( 2.2)
53 ( 4.4)
46 ( 3.6)
20 ( 3.0)
269 ( 4.3)
261 ( 2.9)
275 ( 2.6)
243 ( 3.0)
RACE/ETHNICITY
*Me
State
4 ( 1.3)
68 ( 3.8)
58 ( 3.5)
12 ( 1.9)
270 (10.5)1
269
1.7)
272 ( 1.6)
255 ( 3.0)
Nation
14 ( 2.4)
53 ( 5.0)
43 ( 42)
18 ( 2.8)
276 ( 4.1)
271 ( 3.1)
281 ( 3.0)
251 ( 3.3)
Black
State
7 ( 3.0)
75 ( 5.5)
40 ( 5.2)
31 ( 6.3)
232 ( 4.9)
248 ( 4.2)
Nation
14 ( 3.4)
53 ( 8.2)
39 ( 7.1)
27 ( 6.9)
(
225 ( 4.3)
253 ( 8.3)
226 ( 2.2)1
Hispanic
State
$ ( 2.3)*)
71 ( 7.2)
238 ( 6.3)
37 ( 7.0)
.***)
37 ( 8.0)
Nation
15 ( 4.1),)
56 ( 6.3)
246 ( 4.4)
46 ( 5.9)
257 ( 4.0)1
18 ( 4.2)
American Indian
State
11 ( 5,0))
65 ( 6.3)
251 ( 4.8)
51 ( 6.3)
262 ( 3.7)
12 ( 2.6)
**.
*.)
Nation
3 ( 4.2)
***
***)
82 (29.1)
4,0 ( **)
16 (21.5)
** ( *4.)
67 (51.6)
* )
TYPE OF COMMUNITY
Advantaged urban
ltate
0 ( 0.0)
( 0")
58 (11.5)
282
52 ( 9.8)
281 ( 4.9)1
6 ( 2,8)
...)
Nation
11 ( 6.6)
(
65 (19.4)
284 ( 7.4)1
41 ( 8.9)
296 ( 7,9)1
18 ( 5.3)
***
Disadvantaged urban
State
o ( 0.0)
.")
81 (16,2)
253 (
5.4)1
62 (13.4)
262 ( 5.6)1
11 ( 5.2)
***
Nation
19 ( 9.4)
34 (11.4)
53 (11,8)
*** ( 4")
236 ( 82)/
254 (
6,3)1
Extreme nerd
State
1
1.0)
71 ( 9.2)
44 ( 7.9)
16 ( 4.7)
( ***)
253 (
5.9)1
262 (
2.8)1
239 ( 7.1)1
Nation
5 ( 5,4)
65 (16.9)
42 (16.0)
( ***)
254 ( 6,7)1
111.
*IN
241 ( 5.9)1
Otner
State
8 ( 2.8)
67 ( 3.7)
58 ( 4.4)
14 ( 2.5)
267 ( 7.3)1
266 ( 2.1)
272 ( 2.3)
248 (
3.4)1
Nation
15 ( 2.9)
53 ( 5.2)
47 ( 4.3)
17 ( 3.3)
267 ( 4.7)
260 ( 3.4)
276 ( 2.8)
24.5 (
4.4)1
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within
2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample. The percentages may not total 100 percent because the "Moderate emphasis"
category is not included.
! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
1
1
106
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
TABLE AS
I Teachers' Reports on the Emphasis Given To
(continued)
Specific Mathematics Content Areas
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1990 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
Data Analysis, Statistics, and
Probability
Algebra and Functions
Heavy Emphasis
Little or No
Emphasis
Heavy Emptasis
Utile or No
Emphasis
TOTAL
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
proficiency
Percentage
and
Profidencti
Percentage
and
Preticiency
State
5 (
284 (
12)
0.7)1
(
263 (
3.7)
1.9)
55 (
270 (
3.4)
1.8)
15 (
24e (
1.9)
2.9)
Nation
14 ( 2.2)
53 ( 4.4)
48 ( 3.6)
20 ( 3.0)
289 ( 4.3)
281 ( 2.9)
275 ( 2.5)
243 ( 3,0)
PARENTS EDUCATION
HS non-graduat
State
8 ( 3.8)
72 ( 5.6)
45 ( 5.1)
18 ( 3.9)
*Mt
( ***)
249 ( 42)
261 ( 4$)
"Mr (
Nation
9 ( 3.0)
53 (
240 (
7.7)
8.2)
23 (
( 5.2)
.44)
29 (
144t ( 8.9)
*41
NS grackude
State
4 ( 1.5)
72 ( 4.4)
50 ( 3.6)
17 ( 2.3)
254 ( 2.8)
259 ( 2.4)
240 ( 3.6)
Nation
17 ( 3.7)
54 ( 5.4)
44 ( 4.8)
23 ( 3.9)
261 ( 6.0)1
247 ( 2.9)
285 ( 3$)
239 ( 3.4)
Some coney
State
7 ( 2.8)
64 ( 5.0)
57 ( 4.9)
14 ( 2.8)
.11141
( IPS.)
287 ( 2.7)
270 ( 2.0)
Nation
13 ( 2.5)
4.**)
57 (
270 (
5.8)
3.7)
48 (
278 '
4.8)
3.0)
17 (
( 3.1)
College graduate
State
67 ( 3.7)
60 ( J.5)
13 ( 2.1)
(
273 (
2.6)
278 (
1.6)
255 ( 4.3)
Nation
15 ( 2.4)
53 ( 4.4)
50 ( 3.9)
18 ( 2.4)
282 ( 4.5)
275 ( 3.8)
288 ( 3.0)
249 ( 4.0)
GENDER
Mal
State
5 ( 1.7)
*,.)
67 (
266 (
3.7)
2.6)
53 (
270 (
3.6)
1.7)
15 (
247 (
1.9)
4.1)
Nation
13 ( 2.2)
54 ( 4.7)
44 ( 4.1)
22 ( 3.6)
275 ( 5.8)
260 ( 3.5)
278 (
3.2)
243 ( 3.0)
Female
State
5 ( 2.0)
89 ( 4.1)
56 ( 3.5)
15 ( 2.2)
(
259 ( 2.1)
269 (
1.8)
245 ( 3.4)
Nation
16 ( 2.4)
53 ( 45)
48 ( 3.6)
18 ( 2.9)
263 ( 4.4)
262 (
2.8)
274 ( 2.7)
244 ( 3.9)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within .±.
2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample. The percentages may not total 100 percent because the "Moderate emphasis"
category is not included.
! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurst,:
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
107
Oklahoma
TABLE A9
I Teachers' Reports on the Availability of
Resources
PERCENTAGE OF STUUENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
_
MO NAEP TRIAL
I Oot AD the Resources I
I Oet Most of the
I Get Some or None of
STATE ASSESSMENT
Need
Resa-rces I Need
the Resources I Need
TOTAL
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
State
12
2.7)
55 ( 4.6)
33 ( 4.0)
258 ( 2.7)1
266 ( 1.7)
261 ( 2.2)
Nation
13 ( 2.4)
56 ( 4.0)
31 ( 4.2)
265 ( 4.2)
265 ( 2.0)
261 ( 2.9)
RACE/ETHNICITY
White
State
12 ( 2.9)
55 ( 4.7)
34 ( 4.1)
262 ( 2.8)1
271 ( 1.7)
267 ( 22)
Nation
11 ( 2.5)
58 ( 4.6)
30 ( 4.6)
275 ( 3.5)1
270 ( 2.3)
267 ( 3.3)
Slack
State
12 ( 4.2)
56 ( 9.0)
32 ( 8.6)
236 ( 3.4)1
238 ( 2.6)i
Nation
15 ( 4.2)
52 ( 6.6)
33 ( 7.2)
241 ( 5.3)1
242 ( 2.4)
238 ( 4.9)
Hispanic
State
14 ( 5.5)
51 ( $.1)
35 ( 8.0)
( Teri
Nation
23 ( 7.6)
44 ( 4.9)
34 ( 7.7)
246 (
7.7)1
250 ( 2.9)
244 ( 3.0)1
American Indian
State
12 ( 3.5)
....)
55 ( 7.8)
259 ( 2.8)
33 ( 6.6)
252 ( 5.2)1
Nation
6 ( 7.4)
.44)
72 (26.8)
...)
22 (20.7)
TYPE OF COMMUNITY
Advantaged urban
State
5 ( 4.7)
tes ( **)
65 (12.0)
278 ( 3.5)1
31 (10.5)
283 ( 4.1)1
Nation
38 ( 9.2)
59 ( 8.9)
3 ( 3.1)
272 ( 8.5)1
286 ( 1.3)1
)
Disadvantaged urban
State
16 (16.5)
20 (10.8)
84 (16.3)
*GT
***)
253 (
3.5)1
Nation
10 ( 6.8)
40 (13.1)
50 (14.5)
*11.
251 ( 54)1
253 ( 5.5)1
Extreme rural
State
8 ( 3.5)
57 ( 9.8)
35 (10.7)
262 ( 4.6)1
255 ( 5.3)1
Nation
2 ( 2.6)
54 (10.4)
43 (10.3)
280 ( 8.8)1
257 ( 5.0)1
Other
State
14 ( 3.8)
57 ( 5.3)
29 ( 4.2)
262 (
3.2)1
266 ( 1.9)
284 ( 2.7)
Nation
11 ( 2.9)
58 ( 5.4)
31 ( 5.8)
285 (
3.9)1
264 ( 2.1)
263 ( 4.2)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within i 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
! Interpret with caution -- the nal..ire or the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample site is insufficient to permit a
reliable esumate (fewer than 62 students).
1
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
TABLE A9
I Teachers' Reports on the Availability of
(continued)
I
Resources
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1980 NAEP TRIAL
I Ost AU the Resources I
I Gel Most of the
I Oat Some or None of
STATE ASSESSMENT
Need
Resources I Need
the Resources I Need
TOTAL
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
State
12 ( 2.7)
55 ( 4.6)
33 ( 4.0)
258 ( 2.7)1
266 ( 1.7)
261 ( 22)
Nation
13 ( 2.4)
56 ( 4.0)
31 ( 4.2)
265 ( 4.2)
265 ( 2.0)
261 ( 2.9)
PARENTS EDUCATION
NS non-graduate
State
54 ( 8.7)
36 ( 6.5)
2.53 ( 3.4)
Nation
8 ( 2.6)
54 ( 5.7)
38 ( 6.3)
244 ( 2.7)
243 (
3.5)1
HS graduate
State
14 ( 3.6)
50 ( 5.0)
38 ( 4.3)
250 ( 3.8)1
256 ( 22)
250 ( 2.5)
Nation
10 ( 2.5)
54 ( 4.9)
35 ( 4.9)
253 ( 4.8)1
256 ( 1.9)
256 ( 2.8)
Some college
State
11 ( 3.0)
58 ( 5.2)
31 ( 4.7)
267 ( 2.3)
26e ( 3.3)
Nation
13 ( 3.3)
62 ( 4.3)
25 ( 4.1)
269 ( 2.5)
267 ( 3.8)
College graduate
State
11 ( 3.0)
57 ( 4.6)
33 ( 4.2)
266 ( 4.0)1
274 ( 2.2)
272 ( 2.7)
Nation
15 ( 2.9)
56 ( 4.9)
30 ( 5.1)
276 ( 5.4)1
276 ( 2.2)
273 ( 3.7)
GENDER
Male
State
13 ( 2.9)
53 ( 4,7)
34 ( 42)
261 ( 2.9)1
269 ( 1.8)
263 (
2.8)
Nation
13 ( 2.6)
57 ( 4.0)
30 ( 4.0)
264 ( 5.0)1
265 ( 2.6)
264 ( 3.3)
Female
State
11 ( 2.6)
57 ( 4.7)
32 ( 4,1)
254 (
3.5)1
263 ( 1.9)
259 ( 2.2)
Nation
13 ( 2.4)
55 ( 4.4)
32 ( 4.7)
266 ( 3.9)
264 ( 2.0)
257 ( 3.0)
The standard ermrs of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency,
41" Sample size is insufficient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
1 : 4
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
109
Oklahoma
TABLE Al Oa I Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of Small
1 Group Work
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
_
1260 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
At Least Once a Week
Less Than Once a Week
thiVer
,
TOTAI.
Percentage
and
Prefidency
Peroeniage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
State
44 ( 3.9)
38 ( 3.7)
16 ( 2.9)
203 ( 2.2)
263 ( 1.7)
259 ( 2.8)
Nation
50 ( 4.4)
43 ( 4.1)
( 2.0)
260 C 22)
204 ( 2,3)
277 ( 5.4)1
RACE/ETHNICITY
White
State
42 ( 42)
40 ( 3.9)
18 ( 3.1)
269 ( 2.1)
270 ( 1.7)
263 ( 2.8)
Nation
49 ( 4.8)
43 ( 4,5)
8 ( 23)
265 ( 2.7)
271 ( 2.2)
285 ( 4.9)1
Bieck
State
59 ( 7.8)
23 ( 8.7)
13 ( 3.4)
236 ( 2.8)1
IF** (
84* ( fel
Nation
47 ( 8.1)
45 ( 7.0)
9 ( 4.1)
240 ( 3.4)
238 ( 4.0)
*IN ( *el
Hispanic
State
39 ( 7.5)
***)
35 ( 7.9)
044 (
*Olt )
28 ( 8.9)
Nation
64 ( 7.2)
248 ( 2$)
32 ( 6.9)
247 ( 8.3)1
4 ( 1.4)
.411
American Indian
State
42 ( 8.8)
42 ( 7.2)
15 ( 4.1)
258 ( 4.0)
253 ( 4.2)1
Nation
18 (24.3)
.4* )
80 (27.2)
(
2 ( 3.7)
TYPE OF COMMUNITY
Advantaged urban
State
15 ( 5.9)
83 (14.8)
22 (11.2)
280 ( 3.1)1
fa*
-h11 )
Nation
39 (22.9)
*iv
41 (17.9)
273 ( 6.0)1
20 (12.2)
Disadvantaged urban
State
69 (15.5)
17 (10.2)
15 (15.2)
251
21)1
Nation
70 (11.7)
21 ( 9.0)
9 ( 8$)
248 ( 4.8)1
249 ( 8.7)1
Extreme rural
State
34 (10.5)
51 (10.9)
15 ( 7.0)
255 ( 6.8)1
261 ( 3.0)1
254 (13.2)1
Nation
35 (14.8)
56 (17.1)
9 ( 9.6)
255 ( 5.5)1
25$ ( 5.9)1
Other
State
50 ( 5.1)
32 ( 3.8)
17 ( 3.3)
207 ( 2.4)
265 ( 2.7)
258 ( 2.8)1
Nation
50 ( 4.4)
44 ( 4I.5)
6 ( 1.8)
260 (
2.4)
284 ( 2.8)
277 ( 8.3)1
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within r 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accv.rate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Samplt size is insufficient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
110
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
TABLE Al Oa I Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of Small
(continued)
I Group Work
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1900 KAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
At Lust Once a Week
Loss Than Once a Wuk
Never
TOTAL
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Prolicioncy
State
44 ( 3.9)
38 ( 3.7)
18 ( 2.9)
283 ( 2.2)
288 ( 1.7)
259 ( 2.8)
Nation
50 ( 4.4)
43 ( 4.1)
8 ( 2.0)
260 ( 22)
264 ( 2.3)
277 ( 5.4)1
PARENTS' EDUCATION
NS non-graduate
State
44 ( 5.8)
40 ( 6.3)
15 ( 3.7)
254 ( 3.5)
250 ( 3.6)
1111*
( *41
Nation
60 ( 6.4)
39 ( 6.5)
1 ( 1.4)
244 ( 3.2)
244 ( 3.2)1
HS graduate
State
46 ( 4.8)
36 ( 4.51
19 ( 3.5)
152 ( 2.7)
258 ( 2.3;
250 ( 2.5)
Nation
49 ( 4.8)
45 ( 5.1)
6 ( 2.5)
252 ( 2.8)
257 ( 2.7)
Some college
State
46 ( 4.7)
34 ( 3.8)
20 ( 3.7)
267 ( 2.1)
268 ( 3.0)
261 (
3.7)1
Nation
54 ( 52)
42 ( 5.1)
266 ( 3.1)
268 ( 3.2)
College graduate
State
43 ( 42)
40 ( 3.9)
17 ( 2.8)
271 ( 2.9)
276 (
1.6)
208 ( 3.6)
Nation
48 ( 5.2)
43 ( 4.4)
11 ( 2.7)
271 ( 2.6)
276 ( 3.0)
285 (
4.9)1
GENDER
Male
State
44 ( 4.0)
38 ( 3.9)
18 ( 2.7)
266 ( 2.6)
208 ( 2.2)
262 ( 2.4)
Nation
50 ( 4.5)
42 ( 4.0)
8 ( 2.1)
261 ( 3.0)
285 ( 3.1)
278 ( 5.3)1
Female
State
43 ( 4.1)
39
3.9)
18 ( 3.2)
260 ( 2.3)
263 ( 2.0)
256 ( 3.9)
Nation
50 ( 4.7)
43 ( 4.7)
7 (
2.1)
259 ( 2.2)
263 ( 2.1)
275 (
6.6)1
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within e 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
1 Interpret with caution
the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 02 students).
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSMMENT
111
Oklahoma
TABLE AlOb I Teachers' Reports on the Use of Mathematical
1
Objects
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1990 ?MEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
At Least Once a Week
Lass Than Ones a Week
Never
4111111.
TOTAL
Percentage
end
Proficiency
Pergaitap
Sitd
Proficiency
Poreentage
iNtd
PrOSCINICY
State
18 ( 2.7)
2e1 ( 2.5)
72 ( 3.4)
263 ( 14)
11(22)
265 ( 5.4)1
Nation
22 ( 3.7)
Oa ( 3.9)
a ( 26)
254 ( 3.2)
263 ( 1.9)
282 ( 5.9)1
RACE/ETHNICITY
VRtite
State
18 ( 3.1)
72 ( 3.8)
10 ( 2.1)
263 ( 3.0)
269 ( 1.4)
273 ( 4.0)1
Nation
17 ( 4.0)
72 ( 42)
10 ( 2.7)
261 ( 3.8)1
269 ( 2.1)
268 ( 8.2)/
Black
State
19 ( 4.2)
68 ( 5.8)
13 ( 5.0)
235 ( 2.7)
(
Nation
22 ( 5.9)
233 ( 5.9)1
70 ( 8.3)
241 ( 2.9)
6 ( 3.9)
41
Hispanic
State
13 ( 4.8)
11144
)
72 ( 8.9)
247 ( 3.1)
15 ( 8.7)
oat ( 444)
Nation
39 (
7.5)
55 ( 7.3)
7 ( 2.6)
247 ( 3.8)
245 (
3.8)1
*en
American Indian
State
17 ( 5.5)
73 ( 5.8)
( 2.9)
254 ( 3.1)
Nation
78 (34.6)
***
***)
22 (34.6)
0,4 ( .41
0 ( 0.0)
TYPE OF COMMUNITY
Advantaged urban
State
87 ( 3.0)
7 ( 2.7)
27$ ( 2.3)1
Nation
23 (14.4)
*44(4*4 )
63 (113)
276 ( 5.6)1
15 ( 9.3)
Disadvantaged urban
State
12 ( 6.3)
*44(44*)
88 ( 6.3)
252 ( 3.6)1
0 ( 0.0)
Natic.n
39 (11.4)
59 (12.1)
2 (
1.8)
247 ( 7.5)1
253 ( 7.0)1
Extreb.J rural
State
22 ( 9.4)
263 ( 6.9)1
08 ( 9.7)
260 ( 3.1)
12 ( 8.4)
.44
(
Nation
27 (14.9)
65 (14.6)
8 ( 3.9)
262 ( 2.8)1
*44(4*4)
Other
State
20 ( 4.2)
68 ( 4.9)
12 ( 3.0)
260 (
2.7)1
284 (
1.9)
274 ( 5.1)1
Nation
19 ( 4.3)
72 ( 5.0)
( 3.3)
253 (
3.9)1
263 ( 2.2)
281 (
7.1)1
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency, *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
.1
7
112
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
TABLE A 10b I Teachers' Reports on the Use of Mathematical
(continued)
Objects
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1990 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
At Least Once a Week
Less Mb Al Once a Week
-
Never
TOTAL
State
Nation
PARENTS EDUCATION
NS non-graduate
State
Nation
HS graduate
State
Nation
Some college
State
Nation
College graduate
State
Nation
GENDER
Male
State
1
Nation
Female
State
Nation
end
Preadency
Percettall
and
Proaciency
Percentage
and
Prollciency
18 ( 2.7)
72 ( 3.4)
11 ( 22)
261 ( 2.5)
( IA)
265 ( 5.4)1
22 ( 3.7)
09 ( 3.9)
9 i 2.6)
254 ( 3.2)
263 ( 1.9)
282 ( 54)1
17 ( 3.3)
73 ( 4.4)
10 ( 3.3)
04*
(
251 ( 2.7)
.111
25 ( 5.6)
66 ( 7 2)
9 ( 6.5)
243 ( 2.2)
(
18 (
245 (
3.6)
3.3)1
72 (
254 (
4.1)
1.8)
10 ( 2.4)
«b.)
23 ( 4.8)
70 ( 5.3)
7 ( 2.8)
246 ( 4.0)1
256 ( 22)
21 ( 3.8)
70 ( 4.4)
9 ( 2.3)
266 ( 3.4)1
267 ( 2.0)
18 ( 4.0)
73 ( 4.3)
9 ( 2.4)
261 ( 4.4)1
269 ( 2.3)
-11
**.)
16 ( 2.7)
71 ( 3.7)
13 ( 2.6)
271 ( 3.0)
272 ( 1.7)
275 ( 7.1)1
20 ( 3.9)
69 ( 3.7)
11 ( 2.5)
266 ( 3.5)1
274 ( 2.2)
297 ( 4.2)1
17 ( 2.9)
73 ( 3.6)
10 ( 2.1)
265 ( 3.2)
265 ( 1.8)
269 ( 6.2)1
22 ( 4.1)
69 ( 4.1)
8 ( 2.0)
255 ( 4.1)
265 ( 2.1)
287 (
7.2)1
18 ( 2.8)
71 ( 3.6)
11 ( 2.3)
257 ( 3.3)
261 ( 1.6)
262 ( 5.5)1
21 ( 3.6)
69 ( 4.2)
10 ( 3.3)
254 ( 3.3)
262 ( 1.9)
278 (
6.0)1
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
! Interpret with caution -- the nature of th,! sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. ** Sample size is insufficient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
113
Oklahoma
TABLE Al la I Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of
Mathematics Textbook Use
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
_
1990 MEP TRIAL
About Once a Wasik or
STATE ASSESSMENT
Almost Evory Day
Several Times a Week
Lass
_
TOTAL
and
Proilciancy
AMMIlsiilmow.
Percentage
end
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
State
79
265
( 3.4)
( 1.3)
20
258
( 3.3)
( 2.6)
1 ( 0.7)
( *al
Nation
62 ( 3.4)
31 ( 3.1)
7 ( 1.8)
287 ( 1,8)
254 ( 2.9)
200 ( 5.1)1
RACE/ETHNICITY
White
State
80 ( 3.5)
18 ( 3.4)
1 ( 0.6)
270 ( 1.4)
283 ( 2.3)
Nation
64 ( 3.7)
28 ( 3.2)
( 2.3)
272 ( 1.9)
264 ( 3.4)
284 ( 5.4)1
Black
State
74 ( 7.4)
28 ( 7.4)
0 ( 0.0)
238 ( 2.6)
(
Nation
58 ( 7.7)
41
( 7.9)
2 (
1.4)
244 ( 4.0)
233 ( 3.9)1
Hispanic
State
85 ( 92)
32 ( 8.8)
3 ( 2.4)
250 ( 3.3)
(
***
(
Nation
61 ( 9,8)
32 ( 5.3)
8 ( 2.3)
251 ( 3.1)
240 ( 4.3)1
(
American Indian
State
83 ( 5.6)
15 ( 5.4)
2
( 1.5)
257 ( 2.6)
41-01
*ft )
Nation
15 (25.9)
83 (28.3)
2 ( 3.0)
)
the )
(
TYPE OF COMMUNITY
Advantagsd urban
State
77 ( 5.1)
23 ( 5.1)
279
1
2.P)1
)
(
Nation
63 (15.9)
23 ( 5.2)
14 (14.6)
283 (
7.3)1
( 44)
Disadvantaged titan
State
80 (11.3)
20 (11.3)
0 ( 0.0)
254 (
1.4)1
(
( "9)
Nation
66 (10.7)
31 (11.1)
4 ( 2.2)
252 ( 4.7)1
243 (
8.0)1
4"
( ***)
Extreme rural
State
77 ( 9.6)
22 ( 9.7)
283 ( 3.8)
243 (10.4)1
(
*I* )
Nation
50 (10.6)
40 (10.0)
1 0 ( 7.3)
288 ( 4.0)1
247 ( 7.8)1
Other
State
72 ( 4.4)
19 ( 4.2)
2 ( 1.2)
266 ( 1.7)
259 ( 2.7)1
Nation
83 ( 3.9)
31 ( 3.5)
(
1.9)
267
( 2.3)
255 ( 3.1)
257 ( 5.8)1
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of Interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
! Interpret with caution
the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. **" Sample size is insufficient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
314
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE AssEssmENT
Oklahoma
TABLE Al la I Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of
(wntinued)
Mathematics Textbook Use
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1900 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
Almost Every Day
Several Times a Week
About Once a Week or
Less
TOTAL
1141r0111110.
and
Pro &km
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
State
79 ( 3.4)
20 ( 33)
1
0.7)
265 ( 1.3)
256 ( 2.8)
(
Nation
62 ( 3.4)
31 ( 3.1)
( 1.8)
267 ( 1.8)
254 ( 2.9)
200 ( 5.1)I
PARENTS' EDUCATION
HS non-graduate
State
72 ( 6.0)
25 ( 5.6)
3 ( 2.5)
254 ( 2.7)
.....
( .41
04*
( *11
Nation
67 ( 5.5)
27 ( 5.2)
6 ( 2.1)
245 ( 3.2)
IMI V*/
*** (
*4* )
tiS graduate
State
73 ( 4.0)
20 ( 3.9)
2 ( 0.9)
256 ( 1.6)
248 ( 2.9)1
.4, ( .....)
Nation
61 ( 4A)
34 ( 3.7)
6 ( 1.5)
257 ( 2.5)
250 ( 2.9)
......
( ...4)
Some easy*
State
$0 ( 4.3)
19 ( 4.2)
1 ( 0.8)
267 ( 1.9)
264 ( 4.0)1
....
( ...04)
Nation
68 ( 4.2)
26 ( 3.7)
6 ( 1.9)
272 ( 2.7)
258 ( 5.2)
......
( ***)
College graduate
S:ate
$1 ( 2.9)
18 ( 2.8)
1 ( 0.4)
274 ( 1.8)
264 ( 3.0)
." ( ".)
Nation
61 ( 4.0)
31 ( 3.9)
8 ( 3.1)
281 ( 2.2)
265 ( 3.1)
..4, ( ....*)
GENDER
Male
State
79 ( 3.4)
20 ( 3.3)
268 ( 1.5)
258 ( 3.7)
(
a** )
Nation
60 ( 3.7)
33 ( 3.4)
7 (
1.9)
209 ( 2.1)
256 ( 3.6)
261 ( 6.7)1
Femal
State
79 ( 3.7)
1 91 3.7)
( 0.6)
262 ( 1.5)
255 ( 3.0)
Nation
65 ( 3.6)
28 ( 3.3)
266 ( 1.8)
253 ( 2.5)
(
***)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within
2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
115
Oklahoma
TABLE Al lb I Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of
Mathematics Worksheet Use
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1960 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
Al Least Several Times
a Week
About Once a Week
Lass than Weekly
TOTAL
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Peroentiffis
and
ihoficiency
Percentage
and
Profidency
State
2$ ( 9.2)
32( 3.3)
40 ( 3.0)
257 ( 2.1)
264 ( 2.2)
267 ( 2.0)
Nation
34 ( 3.8)
33 ( 3.4)
32 ( 3.6)
256 ( 2.3)
260 ( 2.3)
274 ( 2.7)
RACEIETHNICITY
Mgt*
State
26 ( 3.3)
33 ( 3.5)
41 ( 3.2)
262 ( 2.3)
269 ( 2.2)
272 ( 1.9)
Nation
32 ( 4.1)
33 ( 3$)
35 ( 3.6)
284 ( 2.7)
264 ( 2.7)
279 ( 2.9)
Black
State
28 ( 62)
4111
)
27 ( 5.8)
*4* (
Mgt )
45 ( 8.0)
239 ( 2.5)1
Nation
45 ( 7.5)
31 ( 7.6)
23 ( 6.3)
232 ( 3.1)1
243 ( 2.3)1
248 (
7.0)1
Hispanic
State
29 ( 7.3)
38 ( 7.9)
33 ( 6.4)
44111 )
Nation
41 ( 7.7)
26 ( 5.3)
33 ( 7.5)
242 ( 3.2)1
244 ( 5.1)1
257 ( 2.3)1
American Indian
State
37 ( 6.4)
33 ( 5.0)
252 ( 5.4)1
257 ( 3.9)
Nation
10 (18.6)
76 (362)
13 (18.5)
)
( e")
TYPE OF COMMUNITY
Advantaged urban
State
40 ( 8.9)
d
29 ( 7.8)
**)
31 (14.1)
***
Nation
59 (13 9)
273 ( 3.4)1
20 ( 6.0)
0.)
21 ( 8.2)
Disadvantaged urban
State
3 ( 2.8)
11 ( 6.6)
86 ( 9.2)
252 ( 2.4)1
Nation
50 (13.9)
22 (11.2)
28 (10.7)
237 (
2.4)1
258 (
8.3)1
263 ( 4.1)1
Extreme rural
State
31 ( 8.7)
40 ( 9.2)
29 ( 6.9)
256 (
6.3)1
254 ( 4.7)1
266 ( 5.7)1
Nation
27 (14.3)
49 (12.7)
24 (10.1)
258 ( 6.7)1
Other
State
29 ( 4.4)
33 ( 4.6)
38 ( 4.0)
255 ( 2.4)
266 ( 2.3)
271 ( 24)
Nation
30 ( 4,4)
35 ( 4.3)
36( 4.2)
256 ( 3.3)
259 ( 2.8!
272 ( 2.9)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within i 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
1 C.
116
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
TABLE Al lb I Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of
(continued)
I Mathematics Worksheet Use
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1960 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
At Least Several Times
a Week
About Ones a Week
1
Less than Weekly
1
TOTAL
and
Prettaleney
gkoramtaga
and
Prandsocy
lisrosesapi
and
Prone/aney
State
2$ ( 3.2)
$2 ( 3.3)
40 ( SA)
257 ( 2.1)
2C4 ( 2.2)
207 ( 2.0)
Nation
34 ( 3.8)
33 ( 3.4)
32 ( 3.8)
258 ( 2.3)
200 ( 2.3)
274 ( 2.7)
!ARENTS' EDUCATION
HS non-graduate
State
28 ( 5.3)
014 (
38 ( 0.4)
.44 ( 441
34 ( 4.9)
044)
Nation
35 ( $.0)
20 ( 8.3)
98 ( 8.9)
239 ( 3.5)
whir)
250 ( 4.5)1
NS graduate
State
29 ( 42)
33 ( 4.2)
38 ( 4.0)
247 ( 2.5)
255 f. 2.7)
258 ( 2.9)
Nation
35 ( 5.3)
361 4.5)
30 ( 4.8)
250 ( 3.8)
250 ( 2.7)
263 ( 3.4)
Some college
State
28 ( 3.e)
30 ( 4.2)
43 ( 3.8)
262 ( 3.1)
288 ( 2.8)
267 ( 2.8)
Nation
33 ( 4.7)
32 ( 4.0)
35 ( 4.1)
280 ( 2.8)
266 ( 4.2)
278 ( 2.8)
College graduate
State
26 ( 3.1)
31 ( 3.1)
43 ( 3.4)
267 ( 2.9)
272 ( 2.5)
276 ( 2,5)
Nation
35 ( 3.8)
32 ( 3.4)
33 ( 3.5)
284 ( 2.6)
271 ( 2.4)
289 ( 2.9)
GENDER
Male
State
27 ( 3.2)
31 ( 3.6)
Al ( 3.4)
258 ( 2.2)
268 ( 2.4)
269 ( 2.4)
Nation
35 ( 4.1)
35 ( 3.6)
31 ( 8.5)
257 ( 2.2)
261 ( 2.8)
275 ( 3.2)
Female
State
28 ( 3.6)
33 ( 3.6)
39 ( 3.1)
257 ( 3.0)
280 ( 2.7)
284 ( 2.0)
Nation
34 ( 4.1)
32 ( 3.7)
34 ( 4.1)
254 ( 2.1)
258 ( 2.3)
273 ( 2.8)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
! Interpret with caution - the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than N students).
122
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
117
Oklahoma
TABLE Al2
I Students' Reports on the Frequency of Small
Group Work
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1090 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
At Least Once a Week
Leu Than Once a Week
Never
TOTAL
Pountage
and
Progiciancy
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
State
20 ( 2.0)
23 ( 2.0)
56 ( 2.6)
261 ( 2.6)
267 ( 1.8)
202 ( 1.5)
Nation
28 ( 2.5)
28 ( 1.4)
44 ( 2.9)
258 ( 2.7)
267 ( 2.0)
261 ( 1.6)
RACE/ETHNICITY
White
State
20 ( 2.1)
24 ( 2.2)
58 ( 3.0)
267 ( 2.6)
272 ( 1.9)
267 ( 1.4)
Nation
27 ( 2.9)
29 ( 1.7)
44 ( 3.5)
268 ( 3.1)
272 ( 1.9)
270 ( 1.7)
Slack
State
26 (
( 4.5)
.41
23 ( 4.3)
Hp.)
51
235
( 5.2)
( 2.7)
Nation
28 ( 3.0)
24 ( 3.6)
48 ( 4.7)
234 ( 3.0)
245 ( 4.6)
234 ( 11)
Hispanic
State
16 ( 3.9)
16 ( 3.3)
68 ( 5.1)
247 ( 4.0)
Nation
37 ( 5.2)
22 ( 3.6)
41 ( 5.0)
242 ( 3.9)
250 ( 3.4)
240 ( 2.8)
American Indian
State
19 ( 3.8)
23 ( 3.8)
58 ( 3.8)
)
253 ( 3.0)
Nation
31 ( 5.1)
35 ( 5.5)
33 ( 5.0)
ft ( **
TYPE OF COMMUNITY
Advantaged urban
State
11 (
..
3.4)
21 (
t-
5.6)
41.1.* )
68
278
( 8.1)
(
2.4)1
Nation
27 (13.9)
33 ( 4.5)
40 (13.4)
286 ( 5.4)1
279 ( 3.5)1
Disadvantaged titan
State
34 (10.0)
*
22 ( 8.6)
...)
43
248
(11.8)
( 4.0)1
Nation
31 (
245 (
5.7)
4.0)1
26207 ((
8.1"
49
245
( 6.3)
(
3.7)1
Extreme nral
State
18 ( 3.9)
19 ( 5.8)
63
( 7.4)
250 ( 4.3)1
263 ( 5.0)1
256
( 3.6)
Nation
34 (10.8)
27 ( 3.8)
39 (11.6)
249 ( 5.2)1
264 ( 3.5)1
256 ( 6.2)1
Other
State
21 ( 2.8)
26 (
2,0)
53 ( 3.1)
( 3.7)
267 (
2.2)
263 ( 1.4)
Nation
_-266
-
27 ( 2.6)
2$ ( 1.7)
45 ( 3.3)
260 ( 3.3)
264 ( 2.1)
262 ( 2.2)
Thc standard eri ors of tile estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
! Interpret with caution -- the naturv of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency.
*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
1f:3
118
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMEN T
Oklahoma
TABLE Al2
(continued)
Students' Reports on the Frequency of Small
Group Work
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1990 PIMP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
At Least Once a Week
Less Than Once a Week
Never
TOTAL
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
ProOdency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
State
20 ( 2.0)
23 ( 2.0)
58 ( 2.6)
261 ( 2.8)
267 ( 1.8)
262 ( 1.5)
Nation
2$ (
258 (
2.5)
2.7)
28 (
267 (
1,4)
2.0)
44 (
261 (
2.9)
1 .6 )
PARENTS' EDUCATION
NS non-graduate
State
19 ( 4.2)
60 ( 4.5)
(
entre )
251 ( 3.1)
Nation
29 ( 4.5)
29 ( 3.0)
42 ( 4.5)
242 ( 3.4)
244 ( 3.0)
242 ( 2.7)
NS graduate
State
22 ( 2.2)
23 ( 2.3)
55 ( 3.1)
248 ( 2.9)
258 ( 2.6)
253 ( 1.9)
Nation
28 ( 3.0)
28 ( 1.8)
43 ( 3.4)
251 ( 3.7)
261 ( 2.6)
252 ( 1.7)
Some college
State
21 ( 2.4)
23 ( 3.0)
57 ( 4.1)
284 ( 3.4)
267 ( 3.0)
265 ( 2.0)
Nation
27 ( 3.9)
27 ( 2.4)
46 ( 3.8)
285 ( 3.6)
268 ( 3.3)
286 ( 2.1)
College graduate
State
20 ( 2.5)
26 ( 2.3)
54 ( 2.7)
273 ( 3.4)
276 ( 2.3)
271 ( 2.0)
Nation
28 ( 3.0)
28 ( 1.9)
44 ( 3.6)
270 ( 2.7)
278 ( 2.8)
275 ( 2.2)
GENDER
Male
State
21 ( 2.1)
23 ( 2.2)
56 ( 2.5)
263 ( 3.0)
270 ( 2.2)
264 ( 1.6)
Nation
31 ( 2.9)
28 ( 1.7)
41 ( 2.9)
259 ( 3.3)
268 ( 2.6)
262 ( 1.8)
Female
State
20 ( 2.3)
24 ( 2.4)
57 ( 3.2)
259 ( 3.0)
284 ( 2.2)
260 (
1.8)
Nation
26 ( 2.4)
27 ( 1.8)
47 ( 3.2)
257 ( 2.8)
268 ( 1.7)
260 (
1.8)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest ths. value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the samplt.
*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62
students).
1 2 4
THE 2990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
119
Oklahoma
TABLE A13
I Students Reports on the Use of Mathematics
I Objects
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
.
1990 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
At Least Once a Week
Lass Than Once a Week
New
4
TOTAL
Peraantapo
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Prafklancy
Parcentags
and
Proficiency
State
19 ( 1.6)
30 ( 1.6)
51 ( 2.6)
258 ( 2.2)
267 ( 1.6)
262 ( 1.5)
Nation
28 ( 1.8)
31 ( 1.2)
41 ( 2.2)
258 ( 2.6)
269 ( 1.5)
259 ( 1.6)
RACE/ETHNICITY
VIM*
State
17 ( 1.6)
31 ( 1.6)
52 ( 2.6)
266 ( 2.1)
270 ( 1.7)
266 ( 1.5)
Nation
27 ( 1.9)
33 ( 1.6)
40 ( 2$)
266 ( 2.6)
275 ( 1.6)
268 ( 1.8)
Slade
State
27 ( 3.3)
28 ( 2.9)
45 ( 4.9)
1104*
243 ( 3.6)
234 ( 3.2)
Nation
27 ( 3.3)
27 ( 3.2)
46 ( 4.5)
234 ( 3.7)
248 ( 4.5)
232 ( 2.6)
Hispanic
State
25 ( 5.0)
50 ( 5.1)
*4.
04r*
( 0+1
Nation
38 ( 4.2)
23 ( 2.0)
40 ( 4.0)
241 ( 4.6)
253 ( 4.3)
240 ( 1.9)
American Indian
State
49 ( 5.0)
(
252 ( 2.4)
Nation
35 ( 3.4)
37 ( 8.2)
28 ( 8.8)
(
we*
TYPE OF COMMUNITY
Advantaged urban
State
( 2$)
35 ( 3.5)
57 ( 4.7)
*411
(
)
278 ( 3.6)1
279 (
2.4)1
Nation
36 (10.3)
33 ( 4.8)
32 (11.1)
278 ( 6.1)1
284 ( 3.2)1
281 ( 5.9)1
Disadvantaped urban
State
16 ( 3.0)
35 ( 4.9)
50 ( 7.0)
253 ( 2.5)1
Nation
35 ( 6.6)
19 ( 2.1)
46 ( 8.4)
249 ( 5.3)1
256 ( 5.7)1
246 ( 4.8)1
Extreme rural
State
21 ( 4.1)
27 ( 4.2)
52 ( 6.3)
249 ( 5.1)1
262 ( 2.8)1
258 ( 4.1)
Nation
37 ( 4.7)
43 ( 5.0)
262 ( 4.7)1
251 ( 5.2)1
Mar
State
19 ( 1.7)
31 ( 2.0)
50 ( 3.1)
260 ( 2.7)
269 ( 2.1)
264 (
1.7)
Nation
27 ( 2.0)
31 ( 1.4)
41 ( 2.4)
258 ( 2.9)
270 (
1.8)
260 ( 2.2)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
! Interpret with caution -- the nature of thc sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
1
120
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
TABLE A 13
Students' Reports on the Use of Mathematics
(continued)
I Objects
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1990 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
At Least Onc a Week
Less Than Once a Week
Never
TOTAL
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Prondency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
State
19 ( 1.6)
30 ( 1.6)
51 ( 2.6)
258 ( 2.2)
267 ( 1.6)
262 ( 1.5)
Nation
28 ( 1.8)
31 ( 1.2)
41 ( 2.2)
258 ( 2.6)
269 ( 1.5)
259 ( 1.6)
PARENTS' EDUCATION
NS non-graduate
State
20 (
***
3.1)
24 ( 3.3)
56 (
249 (
42)
3.2)
Nation
27 ( 4.2)
26 ( 2.7)
47 ( 5.0)
237 ( 3.0)
253 ( 3.5)
240 ( 2.3)
HS graduate
State
17 ( 1.9)
29 ( 2.3)
54 ( 3.3)
246 ( 2.9)
257 ( 2.8)
252 ( 1.8)
Nation
27 ( 2.7)
31 ( 2.4)
43 ( 3.3)
250 ( 2.4)
259 ( 2.7)
253 ( 2.1)
Some college
State
20 ( 2.7)
32 ( 2.7)
4$ ( 4.1)
264 ( 4.2)
267 ( 22)
286 ( 2.3)
Nation
29 ( 2.6)
38 ( 2.3)
35 ( 2.6)
281 ( 3.5)
274 ( 2.2)
283 ( 2.1)
College graduate
State
19 ( 1.9)
32 ( 1.9)
49 ( 2.7)
255 ( 2.7)
277 ( 2.0)
274 ( 2.1)
Nation
30 ( 2.5)
32 ( 2.0)
38 ( 2.6)
269 ( 3.0)
278 ( 2.0)
275 ( 2.0)
OENDER
Male
State
20 ( 1.7)
32 ( 1.7)
49 ( 2.7)
259 ( 2.8)
289 ( 1.9)
265 (
1.7)
Nation
32 ( 2.0)
30 ( 1.5)
38 ( 2.2)
258 ( 2.9)
271 ( 2.1)
280 ( 1.8)
Female
State
17 ( 1.8)
29 ( 1.9)
54 ( 2.9)
256 ( 3.0)
284 ( 2.0)
260 ( 1.8)
Nation
25 ( 2.0)
31 ( 1.9)
44 ( 2.6)
257 ( 3.0)
268 ( 1.5)
257 ( 1.9)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within
2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62
students).
1 f.T.
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
121
Oklahoma
TABLE A14
I Students' Reports on the Frequency of
1 Mathematics Textbook Use
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1990 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
Almost Evry Day
Sawa! Times a Week
About Once a Week or
Less
TOTAL
Parcentage
and
Proficiency
68( 1.3)
265 ( 1,3)
74 ( 1.9)
267 ( 12)
87 ( 1.3)
270 ( 1.2)
76 ( 2.5)
274 ( 1.3)
85 ( 3.2)
23$ ( 22)
71 ( 2.8)
240 ( 2.9)
85 ( 3.3)
249 ( 3.3)
81 ( 3.7)
249 ( 2.3)
81 ( 3.0)
256 ( 2.3)
61 ( 4.4)
(
93 ( 2.2)
281 ( 2.6)1
73 (11.1)
288 ( 4,6)I
89 ( 2.7)
252 ( 2.9)1
69 ( 2.8)
253 ( 3,7)1
84 ( 3.6)
259 ( 3.4)
68 (11.3)
263 ( 42)1
87 ( 1.7)
267 ( 14)
75 ( 2.2)
267 ( 1.6)
Perventage
and
Prefidency
9 ( 0.8)
252 ( 2.5)
14 ( 0.8)
252 ( 1.7)
9 ( 0.6)
257 ( 2.2)
13 ( 0.8)
256 ( 2.2)
8 ( 2.0)
111111 ( V41
15 ( 1.7)
232 ( 3.1)
10 ( 2.8)
6.011
Mr& )
21 ( 2.9)
242 ( 5.1)
13 ( 2.5)
( **oar)
22 ( 3.6)
***)
ghee
(
Iheit
13 ( 1.7)
4 (
.5)
+14
41.ft )
1 5 ( 2.5)
243 ( 4.4)!
11 ( 2.2)
(
15 ( 3.6)
9 ( 1.1)
252 ( 2.5)
14 ( 1.0)
252 ( 2.6)
Percentage
and
Prolidency
4 ( 0.13)
241 ( 2.1)
12 ( 1.8)
242 ( 4,5)
4 ( 0.8)
247 ( 3.2)
11 ( 2.2)
252 ( 5.1)1
( 1.6)
41.114
1141
14 ( 32)
223 ( BA)t
5( 2.0)
**V ( 4+1
17 ( 2.7)
224 ( 3.4)
8 ( 2.1)
(
4r4
we* (
0 ( 0.0)
*Mr (
14 (10.4)
(
7 ( 2.5)
15 ( 22)
235 ( 8.5)1
5 ( 2.0)
*el
17 ( 8.2)
( *v.)
4 ( 1.0)
*4.1
10 ( 1.9)
239
4.3)1
State
Nation
RACE/ETHNICITY
White
State
Nation
Slack
State
Nation
Hispanic
State
Nation
American Indian
State
Nation
TYPE OF COMMUNITY
Advantaged urban
State
Nation
Disadvantaged urban
State
Nation
Extreme rural
State
Nation
Other
State
Nation
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. ** Sample size is insufficient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
122
1
7
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
TABLE A14
I Students' Reports on the Frequency of
(continued)
I Mathematics Textbook Use
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1600 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
Almost Every Day
Several Times a Week
About Once a Week or
Less
TOTAL
Percentage
and
PivittiedeY
Persentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Pfelidency
State
88 ( 1.3)
9 ( 0.8)
4 ( 0.8)
265 ( 1.3)
252 ( 2.5)
241 ( 2.1)
Nation
74 ( 1.9)
14 ( 0,8)
12 ( 1.8)
267 ( 1.2)
252 ( 1.7)
242 ( 4.5)
PARENTS' EDUCATtON
HS non-graduate
state
79 (
251 (
3.0)
2.5)
16 ( 3.1)
....)
...)
Nation
64 ( 3A)
245 ( 2.3)
18 ( 2.0)
..)
( 3.1)
HS graduate
State
83 ( 2.4)
10 (
1.8)
6 ( 1.4)
255 ( 1.5)
04* (
*111
". V")
Nation
71 ( 3.6)
16 ( 1.8)
13 ( 2.8)
258 ( 1.6)
249 ( 3.2)
239 ( 3.4)1
Some cc' ege
State
89 (
1.8)
8 ( 12)
3 ( 1.3)
287 ( 1.6)
41..1
Nation
80 ( 2.0)
9 ( 1.7)
270 ( 1.9)
flpit
(
Co 11090 9raduate
State
90 ( 1.3)
7 ( 1.1)
275 (
1.8)
( ***)
Nation
77 ( 2.7)
13 ( 0,9)
10 ( 2.3)
279 ( 1.6)
260 ( 2.8)
257 ( 6.4)1
GENDER
Male
State
86 (
287 (
1.7)
1.4)
10 (
255 (
1.2)
3.1)
44)
Nation
72 ( 2,4)
16 (
1.2)
12 ( 2.1)
268 ( 1.6)
252 ( 2,5)
242 ( 6.1)
Female
State
87 (
1.2)
8 ( 0.8)
5 ( 0.8)
263 (
1,5)
249 ( 3.0)
Nation
76 ( 1.8)
13 (
1.0)
11 ( 1.6)
265 (
1.3)
250 ( 2.5)
242 ( 3.8)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within s 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is Msuflicient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
78
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
123
Oklahoma
TABLE A15
I Students' Reports On the Frequency of
Mathematics Worksheet Use
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1990 MEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
At Least Several Times
a Week
About Once a Week
Less Than Weekly
TOTAL
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
State
25 ( 2.2)
29 ( 1.6)
46 ( 2.3)
253 (
1.9)
263 ( 1.3)
268 ( 1.7)
Nation
38 ( 2.4)
25 ( 1.2)
37 ( 2.5)
253 ( 2.2)
261 ( 1.4)
272 ( 1.9)
RACE/ETHNICITY
Itsittite
State
23 ( 2.5)
28 ( 1.9)
48 ( 2.8)
259 ( 2.0)
269 ( 1.4)
272 (
1.7)
Nation
35 ( 2.9)
24 ( 1.3)
41 ( 3.0)
262 ( 2$)
269 ( 1$)
277 ( 2.0)
Slack
State
31 ( 4.6)
27 1 3.7)
41 ( 5.4)
229 ( 3.5)
241 ( 2.4)
Nation
48 ( 3.8)
32 ( 2.7)
20 ( 3.1)
232 ( 43)
241 ( 2.9)
241 ( 4,4)
Hispanic
State
23 ( 4.8)
.411
38 ( 4.8))
39 ( 5.9)
4.0,)
Nation
44 ( 4.1)
25 ( 3,4)
32 ( 4.3)
238 ( 3,9)
247 ( 3,3)
248 ( 3.3)
American Indian
State
30( 4.1)
?..
29 ( 2.8)
41 ( 4.3)
258 ( 3.1)
Nation
*Mr
*** )
30 (11.3)
28 (12.5)
m
TYPE OF COMMUNITY
Advantaged trban
State
31 (12.6)
25 ( 4.1)
44 (11.9)
"` ( 44`)
283 ( 4.4)1
Nation
50 ( 9.0)
19 ( 4.9)
31 ( 9.3)
271 ( 3.3)1
299 ( 5.3)!
Disadvantaged twban
State
12 ( 1.9)
33 ( 5.2)
55 ( 5.3)
( "4)
249 ( 2.9)1
Nation
37 ( 5.8)
23 ( 3.6)
41 ( 6.7)
240 ( 4.8)!
253 ( 4.1)1
255 ( 42)1
Extreme rural
State
33 ( 4.7)
31 ( 4.5)
36
6.0)
247 ( 4,3)
280 ( 3.6)l
262 ( 2.9)1
Nation
42 (10.1)
30 ( 4.4)
28 ( 7.5)
other
249 ( 4,0)1
256 ( 3.4)1
267 ( 7.3)1
State
23 ( 2.4)
28 ( 2.3)
49 ( 3.0)
252 ( 1.9)
284 ( 1-5)
271 ( 2.0)
Nation
36 ( 2.9)
26 (
1.2)
38 ( 2.9)
252 ( 3.0)
261 ( 2.1)
272 ( 18)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency.
*** Sample size IS insufficient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
124
I
oft.
)
As, 0
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
TABLE A15
I Students' Reports on the Frequency of
(continued)
Mathematics Worksheet Use
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1990 NAEP TRIAL
At Least Several Times
STATE ASSESSMENT
a Week
About Once a Week
Lass Than Weekly
,
TOTAL
Percentage
and
Proadenoy
Peromllage
and
Proaciency
Percentage
and
nova:Macy
State
25 ( 24,
29 ( 1.6)
46 ( 2.3)
253 ( 1.9)
263 ( 1.3)
266 ( 1.7)
Nation
38 ( 2.4)
25 ( 1.2)
37 ( 2.5)
253 ( 22)
261 ( 1A)
272 ( 1.9)
PARENTS EDUCATION
NS non-graduate
State
31 ( 4.0)
33 (
0.64
4.0)
36 (
256 (
4.0)
3.3)
Nation
41 ( 4$)
30 ( 2.7)
29 ( 4.0)
235 ( 3.1)
243 ( 2.7)
253 ( 2.8)
NS graduate
State
28 ( 2.7)
30 ( 2.4)
43 ( 2.9)
242 ( 2.6)
255 ( 1.8)
257 ( 2.2)
Nation
40 ( 3.2)
29 ( 2.2)
32 ( 3.6)
247 ( 2.7)
258 ( 2.5)
262 ( 2.2)
SOITIO college
State
22 ( 3.2)
29 ( 2.4)
49 ( 3.6)
259 ( 3.6)
268 ( 2.5)
267 ( 2.2)
Nation
34 ( 3.4)
26 ( 2.2)
40 ( 3.6)
259 ( 2.3)
269 ( 2.8)
271 ( 2.8)
College graduate
State
23 ( 2.5)
28 ( 2.0)
49 ( 2.9)
263 ( 3.0)
271 ( 2.1)
278 ( 2.2)
Nation
38 ( 2.8)
22 ( 1.8)
41 ( 2.6)
264 ( 2.6)
273 ( 2.5)
285 ( 2.3)
GENDER
Male
State
24 ( 2.2)
30 ( 1.7)
46 ( 2.4)
252 ( 2.0)
267 ( 1.5)
271 ( 2.0)
Nation
39 ( 2.7)
25 ( 1.6)
35 ( 2.7)
263 ( 2.7)
263 t 2.3)
274 ( 2.4)
Female
State
26 ( 2.6)
28 ( 2.0)
46 ( 2.8)
254 ( 2.9;
259 ( 2.1)
265 ( 2.0)
Nation
37 ( 24)
25 ( 1.5)
38 ( 2.6)
253 ( 2.1)
259 ( 1.8)
269 ( 2.2)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire po7ulation is within
2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62
students).
130
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
125
Oklahoma
TABLE Al8
Students' Reports on Whether They Own a
Calculator and Whether Their Teacher Explains
How to Use One
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1990 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
Ovm a Calculator
Teacher Explains Calculator Use
Yes
No
.-
Yes
No
TOTAL
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Madam
Percentaffs
and
Pro Adam
Parcanta
and
Praciency
State
96 ( 0.3)
263 ( 1.2)
2 ( 0.3)
,t1p.
f
38 ( 1.9)
258 ( 1.7)
62 ( 1.9)
266 ( 1.2)
Nation
97 ( 0.4)
3
0.4)
4,9 ( 2.3)
31 ( 2.3)
263 ( 1.3)
234 ( 3.8)
258 ( 1.7)
268( 1.5)
RACE/ETHNICITY
White
State
99 ( 02)
1 ( 0.2)
35 ( 2.1)
85 ( 2.1)
268 ( 12)
(
264 ( 1.8)
271 ( 1.2)
Nation
96 ( 0.3)
2 ( 0.3)
46 ( 2.8)
54 ( 2.6)
270 ( 1.5)
206 ( 1.8)
273 ( 1.8)
Black
State
( 1.4)
5 ( 1.4)
4.9 ( 4.1)
51 ( 4.1)
236 ( 1.9)
( "*)
234 ( 2.6)
238 ( 2.5)
Nation
93 ( 1.5)
7 ( 1.5)
53 ( 4.9)
47 ( 4.9)
237 ( 2.8)
( ***)
235 ( 3.6)
239 ( 2.7)
Hispanic
State
93 ( 2.5)
245 ( 4.1)
( 2.5)
*** ( ***)
43 ( 3.9)
( .41
57 ( 3.9)
250 ( 2.9)
Nation
92 ( 1.2)
8 ( 1.2)
63 ( 4.3)
37 ( 4.3)
245 ( 2.7)
( "*)
243 ( 3.4)
245 ( 2.9)
American Indiari
State
98 ( 0.9)
255 ( 2.1)
2 ( 0.9)
** ( **)
43 ( 3.5)
252 ( 3.5)
57 ( 3.5)
258 ( 26)
Nation
94 ( 3.1)
6 ( 3.1)
.44
71 (16.7)
(
29 (16.7)
TYPE OF COMMUNITY
Advantaged urban
State
99 ( 0.7)
1
( 0.7)
33 ( 5.2)
67 ( 5.2)
280 ( 2.7)3
277 ( 3.9)1
281 ( 2.7)1
Nation
99 ( 1.0)
45 (12.2)
55 (12.2)
281 ( 3.8)1
it-
*441
276 ( 25)!
285 ( 6.4)1
Disadvantaged urban
State
96 (
1.7)
251 ( 2.8))
*** ( ***)
46 ( 9.0)
243 ( 4.0)1
55 ( 9.0)
256 ( 3.1)3
Nation
94 ( 1.2)
6 ( 1.2)
53 ( 7.5)
47 ( 7.5)
250 ( 3.5)3
247 ( 4.1)1
251 ( 3.6)1
Extreme rural
State
98 ( 0.6)
2 ( 0.6)
38 ( 5.2)
02 ( 5.2)
257 ( 3.1)
( "4)
252 ( 3.1)1
260 ( 3.4)
Nation
96 ( 1.3)
4 ( 1.3)
42 ( 8.7)
58 ( 8.7)
257 I. 3.9)1
251 ( 4.8)1
281 ( 4.4))
Other
State
98 ( 0.4)
2 ( 0.4)
38 ( 2.7)
62 ( 2.7)
265 ( 1.4)
260 ( 2.0)
268 (
1.4)
Nation
97 ( 0.5)
3 ( OS)
50 ( 2.7)
50 ( 2.7)
263 ( 1.7)
233 ( 5.4)
258 ( 2.1)
266 ( 2.0)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses. It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within I 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
! interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
3 1
126
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
TABLE Al8
Students' Reports on Whether They Own a
(continued)
Calculator and Whether Their Teacher Explains
How To Use One
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
Own a Cakulator
Teacher Explains Calculator Use
,
1990 NAP TRIAL
1
STATE ASSESSMENT
Yes
No
Yes
No
..
TOTAL
State
Nation
PARENTS EDUCATION
Perantage
end
Prelkieticy
Se ( 03)
263 ( 12)
97 ( OA)
263 ( 1.3)
98 ( 1,7)
251 ( 2.8)
92 ( 1.8)
243 ( 2.0)
97 ( 0.8)
253 ( 1.4)
97 ( 0.6)
255 ( 15)
98 ( 0.8)
288 ( 1.5)
96 ( 0.9)
268 ( 1.8)
( 0.3)
273 ( 1.6)
29 ( 0.2)
275 ( 15)
96 ( 0.4)
265 ( 1.4)
97 ( 04)
264 ( 1.7)
98 ( 0.3)
261 (
1.4)
97 ( 04)
262 ( 1.3)
Poinguage
and
Prolickatcy
2 ( 0.3)
3
234 ( 3.8)
4 ( 1.7)
O./
44)
( 1.8)
3 ( 0,8)
044.
3 ( 0.8)
( *41
2 ( 0.8)
4 ( 0.9)
( 0.3)
filht ( 1141
( 0.2)
***
***)
2 ( 0.4)
441
3 ( 0.5)
"")
***3 ( 0$)
( `")
flerouttels
old
Minaciancy
38 ( 1.9)
258 ( 1.7)
49 ( 2.3)
( 1.7)
40 ( 4.3)
247 ( 3.3)
53 ( 4.8)
242 ( 2.9)
37 ( 2.3)
248 ( 2.8)
54 ( 3,0)
252 ( 1.9)
38 ( 3.2)
260 ( 2.0)
46 ( 32)
265 ( 2,4)
38 ( 2.1)
268 ( 22)
48 ( 2.8)
288 ( 2.2)
38 ( 2.0)
261 ( 2.3)
51 ( 2.6)
258 ( 2.1)
38 ( 2.2)
255 ( 1.8)
47 ( 2$)
2sa ( 1.7)
Peavanite.
and
Pradioncy
62 ( 1.2)
260 ( 1.2)
51 ( 2.3)
206 ( 1.5)
( 44)
252 ( 3.1)
47 ( 4.6)
243 ( 2.5)
63 ( 2.3)
258 ( 1.6)
44 ( 3.0)
256 ( 2.0)
62 ( 32)
269 ( 1.8)
52 ( 3.2)
268 (2.2)
64 ( 2.1)
276 ( 1.7)
54 ( 2.6)
260 ( 1.9)
62 ( 2.0)
268 ( 1.3)
49 ( 2.8)
269 ( 2.1)
62 ( 2.2)
264 ( 1.8)
53 ( 24)
263 ( 1.8)
HS nen-graduate
State
Nation
MS graduat
State
Nation
Some college
State
Nation
College graduate
State
Nation
GENDER
Male
State
Nation
Female
State
Nation
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within
2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample. *" Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62
studems).
"
1
2
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
127
Oklahoma
TABLE A19
I Students' Reports on the Use of a Calculator
for Problem Solving or Tests
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1990 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
Woking Problem* in
Class
Doing Problems at Home
Taking Quizzes or Tests
Almost
Always
Ne ,er
Almost
Always
a
Never
Almost
Always
Never
TOTAL
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
DroficienGy
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Poraintage
and
Proficiency
Percentige
and
Proftelency
State
44 ( 1.4)
31 ( 1.8)
27 ( 1.4)
18 ( 1.0)
18 ( 1.0)
254 ( 1.8)
272 ( 1.5)
258 ( 2.1)
270 ( 1.8)
252 ( 2.2)
Nation
48 ( 1.5)
23 ( 1i)
30 ( 1.3)
19 ( 0.9)
27 ( 1.4)
254 ( 1.5)
272 ( 1A)
261 ( 1.8)
243 ( 1.8)
253 ( 2.4)
UWE 'HNICITY
White
State
42 ( 1.8)
33 ( 2.1)
26 ( 1,6)
19 ( 1.2)
16 ( 1.2)
260 ( 1.8)
276 ( 1.6)
253 ( 2.0)
275 ( 1.9)
260 ( 2.2)
Nation
48 ( 1.7)
24 ( 2.2)
31 ( 1.5)
18 ( 1.2)
25 ( 1,8)
262 ( 1,7)
278 ( 1.3)
270 ( 1.7)
269 ( 2,3)
263 ( 2,6)
Black
State
59 (
229 (
3.1)
3.1)
16 ( 2.7)
....)
29 (
*44
3.5)
13 ( 3.0)
32 (
228 (
3.4)
3.5)
Nation
57 ( 3.2)
20 ( 3.9)
31 ( 2.9)
18 ( 1.9)
38 ( 3,3)
232 ( 2.4)
249 ( 4.0)
233 ( 3,3)
248 ( 5.5)
230 ( 3.0)
Hispanic
State
42 ( 4.1)
31
( 4.2)
...)
29 (
44,
5.0)
19 ( 4.2)
...)
18 (
.4.
3.3)
...)
Nation
51 ( 2.9)
16 ( 3.5)
26 ( 3.2)
21 ( 2.1)
26 ( 2.7)
239 ( 2.8)
252 ( 3.3)1
238 ( 4.8)
244 ( 3.1)
237 ( 3.2)
American Indian
State
39 (
24.5 (
3.1)
3.2)
29
261
( 3.9)
( 3.1)
25 ( 3.1)
21 ( 2.8)
.4)
15 (
..
2.6)
Nation
33 (
( 9.6)
.4.)
.44)
...)
32 (10.1)
es.
(
20 (
( 6.2)
.4.4)
TYPE OF COMMUNITY
Advantaged urban
State
41 (
274 (
5.1)
4.0)1
28 ( 7.1)
)
18 ( 3.3)
...)
21 ( 5.4)
...)
Nation
51 (
270 (
5.4)
4.7)1
23 (10.7)
...)
32 (
274 (
6.1)
4.9)1
(
31 (
281 (
3.8)
7.6)1
Disadvantaged urban
State
42 (
237 (
3.6)
3.6)1
35.. ( 4.7)
...)
16 (
4" (
3.4)
4")
23 ( 4.7)
...)
22 (
( 4.2)
4.4)
Nation
52 ( 3.1)
22 ( 4.5)
30 ( 3.3)
24 ( 2.3)
27 ( 2.9)
241 (
3,8)1
259 ( 5.4)1
246 ( 5.2)1
254 ( 4.6)1
240 ( 4.9)1
Extrems rural
State
40 ( 3.8)
32 ( 4.8)
25 ( 3.3)
19 ( 2.9)
16 ( 2.5)
2415 ( 4.1)
267 ( 4.0)
248 ( 5.3)i
265 ( 5.4)
24.4 ( 5.4)
Nation
46 (
246 (
7.4)
4.3)1
29
268
( 6.5)
( 8.1)1
20 ( 2.5)
..)
23 (
263 (
3.9)
4.4)1
24 ( 6.6)
.*)
Other
State
45 (
1.8)
30 ( 2.5)
28 ( 1.5)
17 (
1.4)
17 (
1.4)
257 ( 2.3)
274 (
1.9)
260 (
2.6)
273 ( 2.2)
253 ( 2.8)
Nation
48 (
1.9)
22 ( 2.01
32 ( 1.7)
18 (
1.1)
27 (
1.8)
254 ( 2.1)
272 (
1.6)
263 ( 2.3)
263 ( 2.8)
253 ( 2.7)
Pemities
and
Doak:how
42 ( 1.5)
274 ( 1.3)
30 ( 2.0)
274 ( 1.3)
44 ( 11)
278 ( 1.3)
32 ( 23)
279 ( 1.2)
28 ( 2.7)
4.4.)
24 ( 3.1)
251 ( 4.1)
41 ( 4.6)
04.
...)
22 ( 3.1)
256 ( 4.2)
42 ( 3.6)
266 ( 3.2)
21
( 7.8)
)
49
5.7)
285 ( 2.5)1
28 ( 9.8)
285 ( 4.2)1
43 ( 3.4)
263 (
2.9)1
27 ( 4.8)
263 ( 5.0)i
42 ( 3.6)
267 ( 3.3)
37 ( 8.3)
270 ( 4.0)1
41 ( 1.8)
276 ( 1.5)
29 ( 2.1)
275 ( 1.6)
"l'he standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample. The percentages may not total 100 percent because the "Sometimes" category
is not included.
! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate determination of
the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *" Sample size is insufficient If livrpiit a reliable estimate
(fewer than 62 students).
j e:.
128
THE 1990 NAEP '1111AI. STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
TABLE A 19
I Students' Reports on the Use of a Calculator
(continued)
1 for Problem Solving or Tests
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1990 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
W41 :lilting Pnibl.ms in
Class
Doing Problems at Horne
Almost Paver
Always
Taking Quizzes
Almost
Always
or Tests
Never
Almost
Always
Never
TOTAL
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Perawdege
and
Proliciem
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
State
44 ( 1.4)
31 ( 1.8)
27 ( 1.4)
18 ( 1.0)
18 ( 1.0)
42 ( 1.5)
254 ( 1.8)
272 ( 1.5)
256 ( 2.1)
270 ( 1.8)
252 ( 2.2)
274 ( 1.3)
Nation
48 ( 1.5)
23 ( 1.9)
30 ( 1.3)
19 ( 0,1)
27 ( 1.4)
30 ( 20)
254 ( 1.5)
272 ( 1.4)
261 ( 1.8)
283 ( 1.8)
253 ( 2.4)
274 ( 1.3)
PARENTS' EDUCATION
NS non-graduate
State
43 (
242 (
3.9)
3.4)
31 (
41104P
( 3.4)
411111
24
OM* ( 3.0)
NV)
24 (
( 3.6)
tile)
19 ( 3.1)
*Ai
37 (
258 (
3.9)
4.3)
Nation
54 (
240 (
3.3)
2.3)
19 (( 3.8)
***)
2fi (
244 (
3.1)
3.8)
22 (
244 (
2.6)
4.2)
32 ( 3.6)
237 ( 2.3)
24 (
251 (
3.2)
4.6)
HS graduate
State
49 ( 2.3)
30 ( 2.1)
29 ( 2.4)
16( 11)
19 ( 1.8)
36 ( 2.2)
246 ( 2.0)
263 ( 2.3)
246 ( 2.7)
258 ( 2.4)
244 ( 2.7)
265 ( 2.0)
Nation
52 ( 2$)
20 ( 2.4)
29 ( 1.9)
18 ( 1.5)
26 ( 1.8)
27 ( 2.2)
249 ( 1.4)
265 ( 2.7)
250 ( 2.4)
256 ( 2.4)
246 ( 2.8)
265 ( 2.0)
Some college
State
39 ( 2.8)
35 ( 2.7)
21 ( 2.2)
19 ( 1.9)
16 ( 1.8)
46 ( 3.1)
258 ( 2.7)
272 ( 2.2)
260 ( 3.0)
273 ( 2.8)
255 ( 3.5)
274 ( 2.0)
Nation
46 ( 2.8)
26 ( 2.8)
28 ( 2.0)
20 ( 1.9)
26 ( 2.4)
35 ( 2,5)
258 ( 2.1)
272
2$)
267 ( 3.0)
266 ( 3.2)
255 ( 3.8)
275 ( 2.0)
College graduate
State
42 ( 1.8)
31 ( 2.4)
29 ( 2.0)
19 ( 1.5)
18 ( 1.4)
46 ( 2.0)
263 ( 2.3)
282 ( 2.4)
269 ( 2.7)
282 ( 2.7)
261 ( 3.0)
282 ( 1.9)
Nation
45 ( 1.9)
25 ( 24)
33 ( 2.0)
16 ( 1.4)
26 ( 1.8)
33 ( 2.7)
265 ( 1.7)
284 ( 1.8)
274 ( 2.2)
278 ( 2.8)
268 ( 2.6)
285 ( 2.0)
GENDER
Male
State
48 (
1.5)
28 ( 2.1)
28
18 , 1.3)
18 ( 1.3)
38 ( 11)
256 ( 2.0)
274 ( 1.8)
262 ( 2.7)
269 ( 2.2)
255 ( 2.9)
277 ( 1.4)
Nation
50 ( 1.7)
20 ( 2.0)
29 ( 1.6)
19 ( 1.3)
27 ( 1.5)
26 ( 2.1)
255 ( 1.9)
275 ( 2.2)
264 ( 2.6)
263 ( 2.5)
256 ( 3.0)
277 (
1.9)
Female
State
40 ( 1.8)
34 ( 1.9)
27 ( 1.9)
18 ( 1.2)
18 ( 1.3)
46 (
1.8)
252 ( 2.1)
271 ( 2.0)
255 ( 2.1)
271 ( 2.3)
250 ( 2.5)
271 ( 1.7)
Nation
46 ( 2.0)
26 ( 2.1)
32 ( 1.6)
18 ( 1.2)
27 ( 1.8)
33 ( 2.1)
252 ( 1.7)
269 ( 11)
259 ( 1.7)
263 ( 2.1)
251 ( 2.4)
271 ( 1.5)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample. The percentages may not total 100 percent because the "Sometimes" category
is not included. "* Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
114
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
129
Oklahoma
TABLE A20 1 Students' Knowledge of Using Calculators
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
MO NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
,
_
NIgtt "Calculator-Use Group
Other "Calculator-Us*" Group
TOTAL
Parcantaga
and
Prandancy
Pennotaga
and
Prank/nay
State
46( 1.3)
54 ( 1.3)
266 ( 1.5)
256 ( 1.6)
Nation
42 ( 1.3)
58 ( 1.3)
272 ( 1.6)
255 ( 1.5)
RACE/ITHNICITY
WM*
State
48 ( 1.5)
52 ( 1.5)
272 ( 1.4)
263 ( 1.6)
Nation
44 ( 1.4)
56 ( 1.4)
277 ( 1.7)
263 ( 1.7)
Black
.itate
38 ( 45)
62 ( 4.5)
44(*4*)
235 ( 3.1)
Nation
37 ( 3.4)
63 ( 3.4)
24$ ( 3.9)
231 ( 3.0)
Hispanic
State
41 ( 5.1)
rip*
4.11.0
59 ( 5.1))
Nation
36 ( 42)
64 ( 42)
254 ( 4.6)
238 ( 3.0)
American Indian
State
41 ( 3.4)
**a (
59 ( 3.4)
251 ( 35)
Nation
29 (12.0)
71 (12.0)
TYPE Of COMMUNITY
Advantagad urban
State
54 ( 3.9)
49 ( 3.9)
286 ( 32)I
Nation
$0 ( 3.8)
50 ( 3.8)
288 ( 4.9)I
275 ( 4.4)1
Disadvantagad urban
State
38 ( 3.2)
62 ( 3.2)
245 (
3.7)1
Nation
38 ( 4.2)
82 ( 4.2)
262 ( 5.6)1
244 (
3.9)1
Extreme rural
State
46 ( 3.3)
54 ( 3.3)
263 ( 3.7)
2$0 ( 4.1)
Nation
39 ( 5.6)
61 ( 5.6)
269 ( 4.4)1
248 ( 4.3)1
Other
State
48( 1.6)
54 ( 1.6)
269 ( 1.9)
261 ( 1.7)
Nation
42 ( 1.4)
58 ( 14)
271 ( 1.9)
25$ ( 2.0)
The standard errors of the estimated statiStics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
Interpret with caution
the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
130
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
TABLE A20
I Students' Knowledge of Using Calculators
(continued)
I
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
teed NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
Nigh "Ca testator-Use" Oral*
Other "Calculator-Use" Group
TOTAL
Percentage
and
Pro Wine,"
Pamentaw
and
Proliciency
State
48 ( 1.3)
54 ( 1.3)
268 ( 1.5)
258 ( 16)
Nation
42 ( 1.3)
58 ( 1.3)
272 ( 1.6)
255 ( 1.5)
PARENTS EDUCATION
NS non-graduate
State
41 ( 4.1)
.41
59 (
244 (
4.1)
4.0)
Nation
34 ( 3.3)
66 ( 3.3)
24$ ( 4.4)
242 ( 2.4)
NS graduate
State
42 ( 2.1)
58 ( 2.1)
256 ( 2.4)
250 ( 2.1)
Nation
40 ( 22)
80 ( 2.2)
283 ( 2.0)
249 ( 1.8)
Some college
State
47 ( 2.6)
$3 ( 2.6)
268 ( 23)
283 ( 2$)
Nation
48 ( 2.2)
52 ( 2.2)
277 ( 2.6)
258 ( 2.5)
College graduate
State
52 ( 2.0)
( 2.0)
270 ( 2.0)
287 f 22)
Nation
46 ( 2.0)
54 ( 2.0)
282 ( 2.1)
kCs! ( 1.9)
GENDER
Male
State
41 ( 1.6)
59 (
1.6)
272 ( 1 7)
260 ( 2.0)
Nation
39 ( 2.0)
61 ( 2.0)
274 ( 2.0)
255 ( 2.3)
Female
State
51 ( 2.0)
49 ( 2.0)
265 ( 1.9)
255 ( 2.1)
Nation
45 ( 1.8)
55 ( 1.8)
269 ( 1.7)
254 ( 1.3)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within t 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample. *" Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62
students).
n 6
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
131
TABLE A24
I Students' Reports on Types of Reading
i Materials in the Home
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1990 NAEP Taut.
STATE ASSESSMENT
Zero to Two Typos
llwsi Typus
Fox TYPE/ j
TOTAL
and
Proddancy
Poroanlap
and
!random
Percents.
and
Praidancy
State
22 ( 1.0)
32 ( 0.9)
252 ( 1.7)
259 ( 1.4)
2i1 ( 1.4)
Nation
21 ( 1.0)
.30 ( 1.0)
46 ( 1.3)
244 ( 2.0)
256 ( 1.7)
272 ( 15)
RACE/ETHNICITY
White
State
18 ( 1.1)
31 ( 1.0)
51 ( 1.4)
259 ( 1.9)
264 ( 1.4)
274 ( 1.3)
Nation
18 ( 1.1)
29 ( 1.3)
56 ( 1.5)
251 ( 2.2)
206 ( 1.5)
278 ( 1.7)
Black
Sta'e
35 ( 3.3)
37 ( 2.9)
28 ( 2.4)
234 ( 3.1)
233 ( 2.9)
242 ( 22)
Nation
31 ( 1.9)
30 ( 22)
33 ( 2.4)
232 ( 3.2)
233 ( 3.9)
245 ( 3.3)
Hispanic
State
( .41
29 (
( 5.0)
.41
37 ( 5.0)
Nation
44 ( 3.0)
30 ( 2.4)
26 ( 2.3)
237 ( 3.4)
244 ( 4.3)
253 ( 2.4)
American Indian
State
33 ( 3.0)
30 ( 2.9)
37 ( 3.5)
249 ( 4.3)
252 ( 4.5)
263 ( 2.7)
Nation
29 (11.1)
40 (
( 4.9)
.44)
31 ( 9.2)
TYPE OF COMMUNITY
Advantaged urban
State
14 ( 3.1)
31 ( 2.9)
55 ( 4.3)
(
282 ( 3.1)1
Nation
26 ( 2.1)
61 ( 4.9)
fa* ( 0.01
287 ( 3.6)I
Disadvantaged urban
State
24 ( 4.7)
40 ( 2.4)
36 ( 3.4)
*** )
247 (
3.6)1
Nation
32 ( 3.9)
31 ( 2.3)
37 ( 3.6)
243 (
2.9)1
247 ( 3.7)1
257 ( 4.9)1
FAreme rural
State
25 ( 2.0)
34 (
1.7)
41 ( 2.1)
249 ( 42)
251 ( 3.1)
265 ( 3.7)
Nation
17 (
***
4.9)
33 (
253 (
3.2)
4.3)1
50 (
263 (
5.1)
5.6)1
Othel
State
22 ( 1.4)
30 ( 1.2)
46 ( 1.8)
254 ( 2.1)
261 ( 1.7)
272 ( 1.8)
Nation
22 (
1.5)
30 ( 1.3)
48 ( 1.5)
244 ( 2.6)
259 ( 2.2)
272 ( 1.7)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
I Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is Msuffictent to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
1 3 7
132
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
TABLE A24
I Students' Reports on Types of Reading
(continued)
I Materials in the Home
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1990 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
Zero to Two Types
Three Types
Four Types
TOTAL
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentop
and
os-
Percentage
and
Profkdeney
State
22 ( 1.0)
32 ( 0.9)
46 ( 1.3)
252 ( 1.7)
259 ( 1A)
271 ( 4.4)
Nation
21 ( 1.0)
30 ( 1.0)
48 ( 1.3)
244 ( 2.0)
258 ( 1.7)
272 ( 14)
PARENTS' EDUCATION
HS non-graduate
State
43 ( 3.5)
36 ( 3.9)
21 ( 3.2)
246 ( 3.6)
249 ( 3.7)
frfre
( RIM)
Nation
47 ( 4.0)
28 ( 3.0)
25 ( 2.6)
240 ( 3.4)
243 ( 3.3)
246 ( 3.3)
HS graduat
State
28 ( 2.1)
37 ( 1.6)
3.5 ( 2.0)
247 ( 2.3)
251 ( 22)
258 ( 1.8)
Nation
26 ( 22)
33 ( 1.9)
40 ( 1.7)
246 ( 22)
253 ( 2.7)
260 ( 2.1)
Some college
State
21 ( 1.9)
34 ( 2.3)
45 ( 2.2)
281 ( 3.1)
264 ( 2.7)
269 ( 2.0)
Nation
17 ( 1.5)
32 ( 1.7)
51 ( 2.0)
251 ( 4.0)
282 ( 2.6)
274 ( 1.9)
College graduate
State
13 ( 1.1)
217
82 ( 1.9)
258 ( 3.2)
261,
278 ( 1.7)
Nation
10 ( 0.8)
28
:
62 ( 2.0)
254 ( 2.8)
269 ( 2.5)
280 (
1.8)
GENDER
Male
State
21 ( 1.2)
31 (
1.4)
47 ( 1.7)
254 ( 2.0)
261 ( 2.0)
272 ( 1.5)
Nation
21 ( 14)
31 (
1.5)
48 ( 1.4)
244 ( 2.3)
259 ( 2.1)
273 ( 2.0)
Female
State
23 (
1,5)
32 ( 1.3)
45 ( 1.6)
250 ( 2.6)
256 ( 1.6)
269 ( 1.7)
Nation
22 ( 1.2)
29 ( 1.4)
49 ( 1.9)
244 ( 2.2)
258 ( 1.9)
270 ( 1.7)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the enure population is within i 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
4** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62
students).
1 18
TIIE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
133
Oklahoma
TABLE A25
I Students' Reports on the Amount of Time Spent
I Watching Television Each Day
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1990 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
One Hair or
Less
Two Muni
Three Hours
_
Four to Fly*
MIX'S
Six Hours or
MOM
TOTAL
Percentage
end
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
State
10 ( 0.7)
22 ( 0.9)
24 ( 1.0)
30 ( 1.1)
14 ( 0.8)
271 ( 2.7)
2158 ( 1.8)
206 ( 1.6)
260 ( 1.5)
249 ( 1.8)
Nation
12 ( 0.8)
21 ( 0.9)
22 ( 0.8)
2$ ( 1.1)
16 ( 1.0)
209 ( 2.2)
268 ( 1.8)
255 ( 1.7)
200 ( 1.7)
245 ( 1.7)
RACE/ETHNICITY
White
State
11 ( 0.9)
24 ( 0.9)
26 (
1.1)
28 (
1.2)
11 ( 0.8)
275 ( 2.8)
272 ( 1.7)
270 ( 1.7)
265 ( 1.6)
256 ( 2.0)
Nation
13 ( 1.0)
23 ( 12)
24 ( 1.1)
27 ( 1.4)
12 ( 12)
276 ( 2$)
275 ( 22)
272 ( 1.9)
267 ( 1.7)
253 ( 2.6)
Black
State
5 ( 1.7)
.04)
11 (
IP*.
22)
18 (
*IN
( 2.7)
felt)
38 (
237 (
3.6)
2.8)
29 (
231 (
2.4)
42)
Nation
6 ( 0.8)
13 ( 1,7)
17 ( 2.1)
32 ( 1.8)
32 ( 22)
239 ( 7.0)
239 ( 5.0)
239 ( 4.0)
233 ( 2.5)
Hispanic
State
( 4+1
24 ( 4.4)
.41
19 (
0440
3,9)
30 (
4141t ( 4.6)
16 ( 3.8)
Nation
14 ( 2.4)
20 ( 2.5)
19 ( 2.1)
31 ( 3.1)
17 ( 1.7)
(
245 ( 3.2)
242 ( 5.6)
247 ( 3.5)
236 ( 3.8)
American Indian
State
10 (
( 2.3)
****)
19 (
( 3,1)
.41
21 ( 3.3)
31 (
258 (
32)
3.0)
19 ( 2.5)
Nation
13 (
oisik
5.0)
17 ( 8,4)
***)
21 (10$)
**V
1111
28 ( 5.7)
.-**)
22 ( 8.4)
( *el
TYPE OF COMMUNITY
Advantaged urban
State
14 ( 2.0)
26 ( 4.5)
24 ( 4.1)
8 ( 1.9)
Nation
18 ( 1.4)
*te ( I")
25 ( 4.3)
***)
21 (
1.8)
30 ( 4.3)
6 ( 2.0)
***)
Disadvantaged urban
State
4 (
1.5)
24 ( 3.4)
22 ( 4.0)
31 ( 3.1)
20 ( 4.1)
(
Nation
9 (
1.2)
17 ( 3.1)
19 ( 2.1)
34 ( 2.4)
20 ( 32)
(
250 ( 4.0)1
255 ( 5.0)1
251 ( 4.7)1
2311 ( 4.5)1
Extreme rural
State
10 (
044
( 1.4)
21 (
262 (
2.2)
4,0)
24 (
200 (
1,8)
3.1)
31 (
255 (
2.8)
3.9)
14 (
238 (
1.6)
4,7)
Nation
14 ( 3.3)
19 ( 2.8)
23 (
**
2.0)
26 (
25e (
2.7)
3.8)1
19 ( 3.8)
Other
State
11 ( 1,0)
21 ( 12)
23 (
1.2)
30 ( 1.4)
15 ( 1.1)
274 ( 3.0)
273 ( 2.0)
266 ( 2.4)
261 ( 1.7)
251 ( 2.0)
Nation
12 ( 1.0)
21 ( 1.0)
23 ( 1.2)
27 ( 1.2)
17 ( 1.4)
268 ( 2.6)
269 ( 2.3)
265 ( 2.1)
259 ( 2.2)
246 ( 2.5)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate f 1' the sample.
1 Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample size is insufficient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
t
.1
(1
134
THE 1990 NAEP TIUAL STATE ASSESSMENT
p.
Oklahoma
TABLE A25
I Students' Reports on the Amount of Time Spent
(ccentinued)
i Watching Television Each Day
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1990 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
One Hour or
Less
Two Hours
Threw Haws
Four to Five
Hours
SW Hours or
More
TOTAL
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Amen Uwe
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
State
10 ( 0.7)
22 ( 0.9)
24 ( 1.0)
30 ( 1.1)
14 ( 0.8)
271 ( 2.7)
266 ( 1.8)
208 ( 1.8)
200 ( 1.5)
249 ( 1.6)
Nation
12 ( 0.8)
21 ( OA)
22 ( 0.8)
28 ( 1.1)
16 ( 1.0)
( 2.2)
268 ( 1.6)
205 ( 1.7)
( 1.7)
245 ( 1.7)
PARENTS' EDUCATION
HI noniraduate
State
8 ( 2.0)
Nei
23 ( 3.1)
23 (
4114
3.1)
27 ( 3.2)
19 (
.44 ( 3.2)
Nation
12 ( 2.2)
20 ( 3.1)
21 ( 2.6)
28 ( 2.9)
20 ( 2.4)
(
Mr* (
244 ( 3.2)
HI graduate
State
5 ( 0.9)
21 ( 1.9)
28 ( 1.9)
29 ( 2.0)
18 ( 1.8)
(
258 ( 2.1)
257 ( 25)
250 ( 2.0)
242 ( 2.7)
Nation
8 ( 1.0)
17 ( 1.4)
23 ( 2.0)
32 ( 2.3)
19 ( 1.6)
249 ( 4.7)
257 ( 2.8)
259 ( 3.2)
253 ( 25)
248 ( 3.0)
Some college
State
10 ( 1.6)
22 ( 2.6)
24 ( 2.4)
33 ( 25)
11 ( 1.5)
268 ( 3.8)
272 ( 3.0)
261 ( 2.5)
Nation
( 1.4)
25 ( 2.4)
23 ( 2.6)
28 ( 2.2)
14 ( 1.5)
275 ( 2.7)
269 ( 3.5)
267 ( 2.5)
242 ( 3.4)
College graduate
State
15 ( 1.1)
24 ( 1.5)
22 ( 1.6)
28 ( 1.6)
11(1.1)
280 ( 3.7)
279 ( 2.2)
275 ( 2.3)
269 ( 2.4)
255 ( 3.3)
Nation
17 ( 1.3)
22 ( 1.6)
23 ( 1.1)
25 ( 1.5)
12 ( 1.1)
282 ( 2.6)
280 ( 2.5)
277 ( 2.2)
270 ( 2.4)
255 ( 3.2)
GENDER
Male
State
8 ( 0.9)
21 ( 1.3)
25 ( 1.5)
30 ( 1.5)
( 1.2)
272 ( 3.3)
272 ( 2.2)
267 ( 2.0)
263 ( 1.8)
252 ( 2.4)
Nation
11 ( 0.9)
22 ( 1.2)
22 ( 1.0)
28 ( 1.3)
17 ( 1.5)
269 ( 3.3)
267 ( 2.6)
267 ( 2.2)
262 ( 2.1)
248 ( 2.5)
Amid*
State
13 ( 1.1)
24 (
1.4)
23 ( 1.3)
20 ( 1.5)
12 ( 0.9)
271 ( 3.0)
265 ( 2.0)
264 ( 2.1)
258 ( 2.0)
245 ( 2.6)
Nation
14 ( 1.1)
20( 1.3)
23 ( 1.4)
28 ( 1.6)
15 ( 1.2)
269 ( 2.8)
269 ( 2.2)
264 ( 1.8)
258 ( 1.9)
241 ( 2.2)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample. *" Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62
students).
0
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
135
Oklahoma
TABLE A26 I Students' Reports on the Number of Days of
I School Missed
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1990 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
NOM
One or Two DAP
Three Days or More
TOTAL
Perantage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
and
Prondency
State
45 ( 12)
33 ( 0.9)
22 ( 1.0)
266 ( 1.5)
263 ( 14)
256 ( 1.7)
Nation
45 ( 1.1)
32 ( 0.9)
23 (
1.1)
265 ( 1.8)
266 ( 1.5)
250 ( 1.9)
RACE/ETHNICITY
White
State
44 ( 1.4)
35 ( 1.1)
21 ( 12)
271 ( 1.6)
267 ( 1.4)
264 (
1.7)
Nation
43 ( 12)
34 ( 12)
23 ( 1.2)
273 ( 1.8)
272 ( 1.7)
258 ( 2.1)
Black
State
52 ( 2.6)
239 ( 22)
28 ( 2.2)
91,91.)
20 ( 2.9)
*44 (
)
Nation
56 ( 3.1)
21 ( 1.8)
23 ( 2.5)
240 ( 32)
240 ( 4.1)
224 ( 3.5)
Hispanic
State
36 ( 4.1)
38 ( 4.9)
Nation
41 ( 3.3)
32 ( 2.2)
27 ( 2.6)
245 ( 4.8)
250 ( 3.3)
235 ( 3.1)
American Indian
State
45 ( 3,2)
31 ( 3.8)
24 1 2.7)
257 ( 3.4)
258 ( 4.3)
*IN
(
MID )
Nation
23 ( 6.6)
39 j 5.1)
38 ( 5.2)
(
TYPE OF COMMUNITY
Advantaged urban
State
50 ( 4.7)
283 ( 2.7)1
*49.)
19 ( 4.9)
Nation
47 ( 2.3)
38 ( 2.6)
15 ( 3.7)
284 ( 4.4)1
279 ( 4.5)1
Disadvantaged urban
State
47 ( 1.4)
38 ( 2.7)
17 ( 2.1)
251 ( 2.5)1
Nation
42 ( 3.3)
28 1
1.8)
32 ( 2.7)
254 ( 3.7)!
256 ( 42)1
238 ( 8.3)1
Extreme rural
State
47 ( 2.1)
35 ( 1.8)
18 ( 2 2)
261 ( 3.1)
256 ( 3.4)
247 ( 5.3)
Nation
43 ( 4.4)
257 ( 4,1)1
32 ( 4.2)
264 ( 5.8)1
25 ( 3.9)
*44(4*4)
Other
State
43 ( 1.7)
33 ( 1.4)
24 (
1.3)
287 ( 2.0)
267 ( 1.5)
258 ( 2.0)
Nation
45 (
1.3)
32 ( 1.1)
23 ( 1.1)
265 ( 2.2)
298 (
1.9)
251 ( 2.4)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is withm ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
! Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not al,lw accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency.
*** Sample size is insufficien; to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
136
THE 1990 NAEr TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
Oklahoma
TABLE A26
I Students' Reports on the Number of Days of
(continued)
I School Missed
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
11190 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
None
Ono or Two Days
Three Days or More
TOTAL
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Peraintegs
and
Prolkiency
Pert:1119W
and
Prelkiency
State
45 ( 1.2)
33 ( 0.9)
22 (
200 ( 1.5)
263 ( 1.4)
256 ( 1,7
Nation
45 ( 1.1)
32 ( 0.9)
23 ( 1.1
265 ( 1.8)
28O ( 14)
250 ( 1.9
PARENTS EDUCATION
145 nongraduate
State
33 (
*44 ( 3.8)
34 } 2.9)
32 ( 4.2)
Nation
38 ( 3.2)
26 ( 3.1)
38 ( 3.5)
245 ( 3.0)
249 ( 3.3)
237 ( 3.1)
14$ graduate
State
47 ( 2.1)
30 ( 1.9)
22 ( 1.6)
255 ( 2.0)
253 ( 2.3)
248 ( 2.9)
Nation
43 ( 2.1)
31 ( 1.9)
27 ( 1.9)
255 ( 2.0)
257 ( 2.6)
249 ( 2.4)
Some college
State
43 ( 2.3)
37 ( 2.4)
20 ( 2.2)
268 ( 2.1)
268 ( 2.7)
200 ( 12)
Nation
40 ( 19)
37 ( 1.6)
23 ( 1.6)
270 ( 3.0)
271 ( 2.5)
253 ( 3.1)
College graduate
State
47 ( 1.8)
34 ( 1.5)
19 ( 1.4)
275 ( 1.8)
272 ( 2.1)
2e9 ( 3.0)
Nation
51 ( 1.6)
33 ( 1.2)
16 ( 1.3)
27$ ( 2.1)
277 ( 1.7)
265 ( 3.1)
D.ENDER
Male
State
49 ( 1.7)
34 ( 1.4)
17 ( 1,1)
267 ( 1.7)
265 ( 1.8)
262 ( 2.4)
Nation
47 ( 1.8)
31 ( 1.4)
22 ( 1.4)
268 ( 2.0)
287 ( 2.1)
250 ( 2.6)
Female
State
41 ( 1.7)
33 ( 1.3)
26 ( 1.7)
264 ( 1.7)
282 ( 1.9)
253 ( 2.2)
Nation
43 ( 1.4)
32 ( 1.1)
25 ( 1.3)
264 ( 2.3)
288 ( 1.7)
250 ( 1.8)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses,
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62
students).
142
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
137
Oklahoma
TABLE A27 I Students' Perceptions of Mathemafics
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
1980 NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
Sinn* RV**
Arse
,
Undecided Disagree,
Wm* Disagree
_
TOTAL.
parcental
mid
Pralidancy
29 ( 0.9)
271 ( 14)
27 ( 1.3)
271 ( 1.9)
29 ( 1.1)
276 ( 1.9)
26 (
1.6)
279 ( 2.0)
31 ( 2.3)
246 ( 2.7)
32 ( 2.5)
247 ( 4.1)
27 ( 3.3)
04, ( 441
24 ( 25)
257 ( 5.5)
25 ( 2.9)
23 ( 7.4)
44,
4.4)
23 ( 4.3)
44,4
(
444)
17 ( 3.2)
**4
4.4.4)
27 ( 3.6)
**,
26 ( 2.9)
260 (
5.6)1
29 ( 2.6)
268 ( 4.8)
34 ( 2.8)
270 (
3.9)1
30 (
1.3)
272 ( 2.1)
27 (
1.4)
271 ( 2.4)
P4Weelltalp
and
Pt* Wein
51 ( 0.9)
282 ( 1.3)
49 ( 1.0)
262 ( 1.7)
51 ( 1.1)
268 ( 1.4)
48 ( 1.3)
272 ( 11)
50 ( 3.1)
234 ( 2.7)
52 ( 2.3)
733 ( 3.3)
48 ( 4.4)
(
444)
48 ( 2.6)
244 ( 2.2)
56 ( 3.4)
254 ( 2.4)
48 (14.9)
44.4
44.4)
51 ( 3.1)
280 ( 2.2)1
$5 ( 2.4)
280 (
4.1)1
55 ( 3.3)
249 ( 3.4)1
48 ( 2.9)
249 ( 4.6)1
51 ( 2.9)
256 (
3.0)
49 ( 2.2)
252 ( 4.1)1
51 (
1.1)
264 ( 1.7)
48 ( 1.2)
263 (
2.2)
iNircenlege
and
Preliciency
20 (
1.0)
254 ( 14)
24 ( 1.2)
251 ( 1.8)
20 ( 1.1)
259 (
1.6)
26 ( 1.5)
257 ( 2.0)
19 ( 2.6)
.44 (
16 ( 1.9)
227 ( 4.2)
25 ( 4.6)
28 ( 2.1)
236 ( 3.8)
19 ( 3.6)
IHt4
ft* )
29 ( 9.5)
6 1 4.81
2.
4
28 ( 4.2)
4.141.
18 { 2.0)
14,
26 (
3.2)
240 ( 4.5),
20 ( 2.7)
242 ( 4.6)1
17 ( 1.4)
44
444 )
19 (
1.1 )
256 ( 2.0)
25 ( 1.4)
250 ( 1.9)
State
Nation
RACE/ETHNICITY
White
State
Nation
Black
State
Nation
Hispanic
State
Nation
American Indian
State
Nation
TYPE OF COMMUNITY
Advantaged urban
State
Nation
Disadvantaged urban
State
Nation
Extreme rural
State
Nation
Other
State
Nation
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ± 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
Interpret with caution -- the nature of the sample does not allow accurate
determination of the variability of this estimated mean proficiency. *** Sample sire is insufficient to permit a
reliable estimate (fewer than 62 students).
338
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
,91
Oklahoma
TABLE A27
I Students' Perceptions of Mathematics
(continued)
I
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND
AVERAGE MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY
WOO NAEP TRIAL
STATE ASSESSMENT
Stron* Afro,
AC Irs
As
Undockled, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
TOTAL
Percentage
and
Proficiency
Percentage
Ind
Preliciency
Percentage
and
Priadency
State
29 ( 0.9)
51 ( 0.9)
20 ( 1.0)
271 ( 1.8)
252 ( 1.3)
254 ( 1.9)
Nation
27 ( 1.3)
49 ( to)
24 ( 1.2)
271 ( 1.9)
262 ( 1.7)
251 ( 1.8)
PARENTS' EDUCATION
non-gracksale
State
54 ( 4.0)
26 ( 3.4)
250 ( 3.3)
Mr* (
Nation
20 ( 2.6)
50 ( 3.3)
30 ( 3.6)
ras
".)
243 ( 2.6)
238 ( 4.3)
HS graduate
State
24 ( 1.4)
55 ( 1.7)
21 ( 1.6)
257 ( 2.3)
253 ( 1.9)
246 ( 22)
Nation
27 ( 2.1)
47 ( 2.3)
26 ( 2.0)
262 ( 2.7)
255 ( 2.3)
245 ( 2.4)
Some cones,.
State
33 ( 2.2)
47 ( 2.3)
20 ( 1.7)
272 ( 2.0)
266 ( 2.2)
254 ( 3.0)
Nation
28 ( 2.5)
47 ( 2.4)
25 ( 1.8)
274 ( 3.1)
267 ( 1.9)
258 ( 3.2)
College graduate
State
33 ( 1.8)
SO ( 1.7)
17 ( 1.7)
279 ( 2.4)
272 ( 1.8)
265 ( 2.6)
Nation
30 ( 2.3)
51 ( 1.6)
19 ( 1.8)
280 ( 2.4)
274 ( 2.2)
266 ( 2.5)
GENDER
Male
State
29 ( 1.2)
51 ( 1.3)
20 ( 1.1)
272 ( 2.0)
265 ( 1.6)
257 ( 2.2)
Nation
28 ( 1.5)
48 ( 1.2)
24 ( 1.4)
female
273 ( 2.3)
263 ( 2.0)
251 ( 2.4)
State
29 ( 1.3)
51 ( 1.5)
20 ( 1.5)
270 ( 2.3)
259 ( 1.6)
251 ( 2.4)
Nation
26 ( 1.7)
50 ( 1.7)
25 ( 1.9)
289 ( 2.1)
262 ( 1.8)
252 ( 1.9)
The standard errors of the estimated statistics appear in parentheses.
It can be said with about 95 percent
certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the entire population is within ri 2 standard errors
of the estimate for the sample.
*** Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (fewer than 62
students).
THE 1990 NAEP TRIAL STATE ASSESSMENT
139
Acknowledgments
The design, development, analysis, and repotting of the first Trial State Assessment was truly a
collaborative effort among staff from State Education Agencies, the National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES), Educational Testing Service (EIS), Westat, and National Computer Systems (NM). The program
benefitted from the contributions of hundreds of individuals at the state and local levels
Governors, aid
State School Officers, State and District Test Directors, State Coordinators, and &strict administrators
who
tirelessly provided their wisdom, experience, and hard work. Fmally, and most importantly, NAEP Is grateful
to the students and school staff who participated in the Trial State Assessment.
Special recognition is due the Council of Chief State School Offiress (CCSSO) for its considerable
contributions to the program, especially its management of the National Assessment Planning Project That
preiect resulted in the mathematics framework and objectivea for the assessment and recommendations
about reporting the results of the program. In particular, we note the significant contributions of Ramsay
Selden, Director of the State Education Asseument Center for the CCSSO and the members of the Steering,
Mathematics Objectives, and Analysis and Reports Committees of the National Assessment Planning Project.
The Trial State Assessment was funded through NCES, in the Office of Educadonal Research and
Improvement of the U.S. Department of Education. Emerson Elliott, NCES Acting Commissioner, provided
consistent support and guidance. The staff
particularly Guy Phillips, Eugene Owen, Stephen Gorman,
Maureen Treacy, and Raul Garza
worked closely and collegially with ETS, West*, and NCS staff and
played a crucial role in all aspects of the program.
The members of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) and NAGB staff also deserve
credit for their advice and guidance.
We owe a great deal to the Mathematics Item Development and Mathematics Scale Anchoring
Panels. These people
from school districts, colleges and universities, and State Education Agencies
worked tirelessly to help EIS staff develop the assessment and a framework for interpreting the results.
Under the NAEP contract to ETS, Archie Lapointe served as the project director and Ina Mullis as
the deputy director. Statistical and psychometric activities were led by John Mazzeo, with consultation from
Eugene Johnson and Donald Rock. John Barone managed the data analysis activities; Jules Goodison, the
operational aspects; Walter MacDonald and Chancey Jones, test development; David Hobson, the fiscal
aspects; and Stephen Koffler, state seiVicCS. Sampling and data collection activities were carried out by
Westat under the supervision of Renee Slobasky, Keith Rust, Nancy Caldwell, and the late Morris Hansen.
The printing, distribution, and processing of the materials were the responsibility of NCS, under the direction
of John O'Neill and Lynn Zaback.
The large number of states and territories participating in the first Trial State Assessment introduced
many unique challenges, including the need to develop 40 different reports, customized for each jurisdiction
based on its characteristics and the results of its assessed students. To meet this challenge, a computerized
report generation system was built, combining the speed and accuracy of computer-generated data with high
resolution text and graphics normally found only in typesetting environments. Jennifer Nelson created the
system and led the computer-based development of the report. John Mame* oversaw the analyses for this
report. John Ferris, David Freund, Bruce Kaplan, Edward Kulick, and Phillip Leung collaborated to generate
the data and perform analyses. They were assisted by Drew Bowker, Laura McCamley, and Craig Pizzuti.
Debra Kline coordinated the efforts of the data analysis staff. Stephen Koffier wrote the text for the report.
Kent Ashworth was responsible for coordinating the cover design and final printing of this report
Special thanks are also due to many individuals for their invaluable assistance in reviewing the
reports, especially the editors who improved the text and the analysts who checked the data.
ft
US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OPFILT 1991 0
292-275 QL 3 (3K 31)
146