Mathematics Acceleration: Data Perspective Common Core Data 2014 - 2017 Elaine Zseller, Ph.D. DATAG July 18, 2019

Data Perspective What does the data from Nassau County tell us about students who followed a traditional pathway compared to students who followed an accelerated pathway? Traditional students took the NYSED Grade 8 Assessment in 2014 and Algebra I in 2015. Accelerated students took the NYSED Grade 7 Assessment in 2014 and Algebra I in 2015.

DATA Data was linked across years using student and district identification numbers. The 2014 NYSED assessment data was used to identify the student’s demographic characteristics.

DATA Accelerated Students Accelerated students were identified through an “and” statement 2014 NYSED grade seven assessment numeric score>0 2015 NYSED Common Core Algebra I assessment numeric score>0 2014 Math 72015 Algebra I2016 Geometry2017 Algebra II All results were α = 0.000

DATA Traditional Students Traditional students were identified through an “and” statement 2014 NYSED grade eight assessment numeric score > 0 2015 NYSED Common Core Algebra I assessment numeric score >0 2014 Math 82015 Algebra I2016 Geometry2017 Algebra II All results were α = 0.000

Methods Crosstab - Phi statistic - Relationship of poverty and ethnicity Crosstab – Phi statistic – Relationship of poverty and assessment level Crosstab – Phi statistic – Relationship of prior mathematics success to current mathematics success Half-level rows with fewer than 15 students are not presented. These students are in the total count and the total percent.

LIMITATIONS The study did not consider different strategies that were used for acceleration within districts. Only data for the June 2015 NYSED Algebra I assessment was used. August 2015 data was not considered.

Numbers of Students 5,897 accelerated students 5.684 traditional students

Accelerated Demographics   Asian Black or African American Hispanic or Latino Multi-racial White Total Not Poverty (n=4787) % within Ethnicity 86.7% 52.6% 37.8% 92.7% 95.1% 81.6% Poverty (n=1080) 13.3% 47.4% 62.2% 7.3% 4.9% 18.4% Count 1003 498 864 41 3443 5867 100.0% Poverty refers to students from a low income family There were eighteen American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students.

Traditional Demographics   Asian Black or African American Hispanic or Latino Multi-racial White total Not Poverty (n=3816) % within ethnicity 75.5% 47.3% 37.5% 60.9% 90.7% 67.1% Poverty (n=1868) 24.5% 52.7% 62.5% 39.1% 9.3% 32.9% Count 523 1064 1473 23 2581 5684 100.0% Poverty refers to students from a low income family There were 20 American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaian/Other Pacific Islander students.

What do you notice about the data on slides 9 and 10?

Accelerated students 2015 Algebra I   2015 CC Algebra I 1 2L 2H 3L 3H 4L 4H 5L 5H Total % within not poverty 1.1% 2.5% 7.1% 19.4% 27.0% 14.2% 17.6% 10.0% 100.0% % within poverty 11.3% 9.5% 13.2% 17.1% 23.3% 15.7% 5.4% 1.9% Total Count 176 154 265 527 1180 1461 737 868 499 5867 Total % 3.0% 2.6% 4.5% 9.0% 20.1% 24.9% 12.6% 14.8% 8.5%

Traditional students 2015 Algebra I   2015 Algebra I 1 2L 2H 3L 3H 4L 4H 5L 5H Total % not poverty 4.2% 3.6% 6.7% 19.3% 37.4% 20.5% 5.1% 2.6% 0.5% 100.0% % poverty 14.9% 11.5% 16.1% 25.7% 23.1% 6.8% 1.5% 0.4% 0.1% Total Count 439 352 556 1215 1861 911 223 106 21 5684 Total % 7.7% 6.2% 9.8% 21.4% 32.7% 16.0% 3.9% 1.9%  

Add up the percentages for the Levels 1, 2L, and 2H for each row on slides 12 and 13. What do you notice?

Accelerated students 2014 Math 7   2015 CC Algebra I  2014 Math 7 1 2L 2H 3L 3H 4L 4H 5L 5H Total 1L, n=11 1H 127 97 101 77 44 8 455 24 36 78 139 133 43 3 456 16 15 54 177 366 205 9 2 868 4 27 412 517 176 90 5 1334 166 440 249 216 61 1163 56 241 266 477 337 1383 7 18 76 94 197 Total Count within 2014 Math 7 154 265 527 1180 1461 737 499 5867

Traditional students 2014 Math 8 2015 CC Algebra I 1 2L 2H 3L 3H 4L 4H 5L 5H Total 1L 12 4 2 21 1H 337 259 288 299 119 11 1313 81 71 192 547 75 7 1521 15 63 286 673 251 25 1323 74 417 364 92 30 3 995 6 89 150 60 37 351 14 39 34 10 158 Total Count within 2014 Math 8 439 352 556 1215 1861 911 223 106 5684

What do you notice about the data on slides 15 and 16?

Accelerated students 2015 CC Algebra   2015 CC Algebra 1 2014 Math 7 1 2L 2H 3L 3H 4L 4H 5L 5H Total 1L 63.6% 18.2% 0.0% 9.1% 100.0% 1H 27.9% 21.3% 22.2% 16.9% 9.7% 1.8% 0.2% 5.3% 7.9% 17.1% 30.5% 29.2% 9.4% 0.7% 1.7% 6.2% 20.4% 42.2% 23.6% 2.8% 1.0% 0.1% 0.3% 2.0% 7.6% 30.9% 38.8% 13.2% 6.7% 0.4% 2.3% 14.3% 37.8% 21.4% 18.6% 5.2% 4.0% 17.4% 19.2% 34.5% 24.4% 3.6% 38.6% 47.7% Total Count within Math 7 176 154 265 527 1180 1461 737 868 499 5867 Total % within Math 7 3.0% 2.6% 4.5% 9.0% 20.1% 24.9% 12.6% 14.8% 8.5%

Traditional students 2015 Algebra I   2015 Algebra I 2014 Math 8 1 2L 2H 3L 3H 4L 4H 5L 5H Total 1L 57.1% 19.0% 4.8% 9.5% 0.0% 100.0% 1H 25.7% 19.7% 21.9% 22.8% 9.1% 0.8% 5.3% 4.7% 12.6% 36.0% 4.9% 0.5% 0.1% 1.1% 21.6% 50.9% 1.9% 0.2% 1.2% 7.4% 41.9% 36.6% 9.2% 3.0% 0.3% 1.7% 25.4% 42.7% 17.1% 10.5% 2.0% 0.6% 8.9% 38.0% 24.7% 21.5% 6.3% Total count within Math 8 439 352 556 1215 1861 911 223 106 21 5684 total % within Math 8 7.7% 6.2% 9.8% 21.4% 32.7% 16.0% 3.9% 0.4%

Assign room quadrants. Accelerated low performing Assign room quadrants Accelerated low performing Accelerated high performing Traditional low performing Traditional high performing Add up row percentages for slides 18 & 19 1H, 2L, and 2H 3L, 3H, and 4L What do you notice?

Accelerated students 2016 Geometry   2016 Geometry 2014 Math 7 1 2L 2H 3L 3H 4L 4H 5L 5H Total 1H 66.4% 11.9% 4.4% 4.0% 8.6% 0.7% 0.0% 0.2% 100.0% 30.5% 12.3% 7.9% 8.3% 20.4% 16.7% 2.0% 1.3% 15.6% 4.1% 28.7% 27.4% 7.4% 2.4% 2.2% 11.2% 1.1% 3.4% 15.7% 34.8% 12.8% 5.5% 11.8% 1.6% 10.5% 0.3% 0.9% 4.6% 27.1% 16.8% 9.6% 23.8% 6.1% 10.3% 0.1% 1.9% 10.6% 7.2% 38.5% 21.3% 0.5% 2.5% 5.6% 32.0% 50.8% Total Count within Math 7 1014 166 121 184 671 1254 593 323 1052 489 5867 Total % within Math 7 17.3% 2.8% 2.1% 3.1% 11.4% 21.4% 10.1% 17.9%

Traditional students 2016 Geometry   2016GeoHalfLevel Total 2014 Math 8 1 2L 2H 3L 3H 4L 4H 5L 5H 1L 61.9% 19.0% 4.8% 0.0% 100.0% 1H 64.5% 15.3% 4.9% 5.1% 8.1% 1.9% 0.2% 29.8% 11.0% 9.9% 28.1% 11.5% 1.1% 0.3% 13.0% 3.3% 4.5% 6.4% 32.8% 33.9% 3.6% 1.6% 0.8% 0.1% 5.3% 0.6% 1.4% 2.7% 23.1% 43.0% 11.7% 3.7% 10.0% 37.3% 18.8% 7.1% 21.4% 6.3% 2.5% 22.8% 15.2% 8.2% 36.1% 8.9% Total Count within Math 8 1561 421 262 331 1239 1245 273 113 213 26 5684 Total % within Math 8 27.5% 7.4% 4.6% 5.8% 21.8% 21.9% 2.0% 0.5%

Assign room quadrants Add up row percentages for slides 21 and 22 Assign room quadrants Add up row percentages for slides 21 and 22 1H, 2L, and 2H 3L, 3H, and 4L What do you notice?

Accelerated students 2017 Algebra II   2017 Algebra II 2014 Math 7 1 2L 2H 3L 3H 4L 4H 5L 5H Total 1H 83.1% 1.5% 0.9% 0.7% 4.4% 6.2% 1.8% 0.0% 100.0% 53.5% 2.2% 2.0% 8.3% 17.3% 9.9% 27.4% 1.0% 1.7% 2.1% 7.9% 25.9% 16.8% 11.8% 5.1% 0.2% 15.6% 0.3% 1.1% 4.1% 20.2% 22.0% 15.7% 0.5% 12.1% 11.1% 17.6% 22.1% 33.1% 11.4% 3.6% 7.2% 17.8% 51.3% 8.2% 11.2% 6.6% 53.8% 27.9% Total Count within Math 7 1400 26 35 51 205 781 774 938 1458 199 5867 Total % within Math 7 23.9% 0.4% 0.6% 3.5% 13.3% 13.2% 16.0% 24.9% 3.4%

Traditional students 2017 Algebra II   2017 Algebra II 2014 Math 8 1 2L 2H 3L 3H 4L 4H 5L 5H Total 1L 95.2% 0.0% 4.8% 100.0% 1H 89.4% 1.8% 0.9% 1.1% 1.7% 4.0% 0.1% 61.9% 2.0% 1.6% 2.8% 7.5% 17.1% 5.3% 0.3% 33.1% 1.3% 1.0% 2.7% 10.4% 28.2% 14.6% 6.2% 2.5% 16.0% 0.8% 6.3% 31.5% 21.4% 15.7% 6.0% 10.3% 0.6% 2.6% 22.5% 20.2% 27.1% 11.4% 12.0% 22.8% 17.7% 31.0% 1.9% 50.0% Total Count within Math 8 2787 77 57 115 350 1097 607 387 202 5 5684 Total % within Math 8 49.0% 1.4% 19.3% 10.7% 6.8% 3.6%

Assign room quadrants Add up row percentages for slides 24 and 25 Assign room quadrants Add up row percentages for slides 24 and 25 1H, 2L, and 2H 3L, 3H, and 4L What do you notice?

Accelerated 2015 CC Algebra I: Not Poverty 2014 Math 7 1 2L 2H 3L 3H 4L 4H 5L 5H Total 1H 18.9% 16.1% 21.7% 16.7% 4.4% 0.6% 0.0% 100.0% 2.7% 11.2% 30.5% 36.6% 13.6% 1.0% 1.2% 4.1% 18.2% 43.5% 27.1% 3.7% 0.3% 0.1% 1.7% 6.2% 28.0% 41.0% 14.4% 7.9% 0.4% 2.0% 14.1% 37.1% 21.4% 19.6% 5.5% 3.4% 16.5% 19.1% 35.7% 24.9% 0.5% 9.0% 39.4% 47.3% Total Count 54 51 122 342 928 1291 679 841 479 4787 Total % 1.1% 2.5% 7.1% 19.4% 27.0% 14.2% 17.6% 10.0%

Accelerated 2015 CC Algebra I: Poverty 2014 Math 7 1 2L 2H 3L 3H 4L 4H 5L 5H Total 1H 33.8% 24.7% 22.5% 13.8% 5.1% 0.0% 100.0% 9.9% 14.3% 28.0% 30.4% 15.5% 1.9% 3.7% 12.6% 27.0% 38.1% 13.0% 0.5% 3.6% 14.5% 45.2% 27.6% 7.2% 0.9% 5.2% 44.8% 21.6% 9.5% 2.6% 1.3% 20.8% 15.6% Total Count 122 103 143 185 252 170 58 27 20 1080 Total Percent 11.3% 13.2% 17.1% 23.3% 15.7% 5.4% 2.5%

Traditional 2015 CC Algebra I: Not Poverty 2014 Math 8 1 2L 2H 3L 3H 4L 4H 5L 5H Total 1H, n = 571 20.7% 15.9% 21.4% 27.5% 13.5% 1.1% 0.0% 100.0% 2L, n = 967 3.7% 9.0% 34.9% 41.5% 6.7% 0.4% 0.1% 2H, n = 1001 0.9% 3.6% 18.0% 52.4% 22.0% 2.4% 0.2% 3L, n = 819 1.2% 6.3% 41.1% 37.4% 9.9% 3.4% 3H, n = 310 1.9% 24.5% 43.2% 17.1% 11.3% 4L, n = 139 0.7% 8.6% 38.1% 23.7% 21.6% 7.2% Total Count 161 138 256 735 1429 784 195 98 20 3816 Total Percent 4.2% 19.3% 20.5% 5.1% 2.6% 0.5%

Traditional 2015 CC Algebra I: Poverty 2014 Math 8 1 2L 2H 3L 3H 4L 4H 5L 5H Total 1H, n = 742 29.5% 22.6% 22.4% 19.1% 5.7% 0.7% 0.0% 100.0% 2L, n = 554 8.1% 6.3% 19.0% 37.9% 26.4% 1.8% 0.5% 2H, n = 322 0.9% 1.9% 8.4% 32.9% 46.0% 9.6% 0.3% 3L, n = 178 0.6% 1.1% 12.5% 45.5% 33.0% 3H, n = 41 2.4% 31.7% 39.0% 17.1% 4.9% 4L, n = 41 10.5% 36.8% 31.6% 21.1% Total Count 278 214 300 480 432 127 28 8 1868 Total Percent 14.9% 11.5% 16.1% 25.7% 23.1% 6.8% 1.5% 0.4% 0.1%

How would you interpret this data for educational policy analysis: mathematics acceleration?

Reflection Mathematics ability is a function of opportunity, experience, and effort (p.63). Equity is achieved when students receive differentiated support (p. 63). Equity is ensuring that all students have access to high-quality curriculum, instruction, and support (p. 63). Equity does not mean that every student should receive identical instruction (p.59). Leinwald, S. et al (2014). Principles to Actions: Ensuring Mathematical Success for All. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Reflection A majority of public school students qualify as poor (p.5). Brains of students from poverty differ (p. 7) Health issues – poor diets and exposure to toxins Chronic stress Weaker cognitive skills Impaired socioemotional relationships Building a positive mind set makes a difference (p.14) Change the narrative, change your teaching (p.117). Jensen, Eric (2017). Poor students, richer teaching: Mindsets that raise student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press

Reflection The brain changes based on use (p.52). When learning takes place, the brain changes (p.56). Brain changes can take place at any point throughout life (p.58). Learning emerges based on interactions with the environment (p.67). Posey, Allison (2019). Engage the Brain. Alexandria, VA: ASCD

www.nassauboces.org