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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Numbers of Students 5,897 accelerated students
5.684 traditional students

9. 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.

10. 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.

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

12. 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%

13. 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%

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

15. 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

16. 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

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

18. 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%

19. 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%

20. 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?

21. 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%

22. 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%

23. 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?

24. 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%

25. 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%

26. 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?

27. 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%

28. 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%

29. 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%

30. 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%

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

32. 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.

33. 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

34. 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