Math+Data+Analysis+Session+Summer+2010


 * Thank you to Ron Kubart, Katrina Rubino, Michele Juric, Linda Young and Elizabeth Turner for their work at the math analysis session.**

The process: Ron looked closely at grade 8; Katrina looked closely at grade 7; Linda looked closely at grade 6; and Michele looked closely at grade 3. Elizabeth looked at grade 5.

Key points:

Number sense and operations is the weakest area overall.
 * Grade 8:**

The scales make analysis tricky. Last year, 800 was a perfect score in 7th grade; however this year, 775 is a perfect score. Most of the decreases in scores from last year to this were by students scoring at levels one and two; most of the increases were by students scoring at levels one and two. We should look further at this because of the differences in scale scores from 7th to 8th.

The vast majority of students at level 2 for Ron were students who did not do homework regularly; for levels 3 and 4, the reverse was true.

Of the students who scored level 2, only one was really a surprise. All but two were students receiving either AIS or special education supports.
 * Grade 7:**

Looked at who was consistently at level two over time or who were inconsistent, but fluctuating at lower levels: these students should be in AIS.

Looked at who have been consistently at level three, but who dropped to level 2 because of the new cut scores: 23 out of 51 students who scored a level 2 had been consistently a level three in the past.

We were not able to look at prior scores of 8 new entrants who received level 2 because we did not have that information in front of us at this session.

Number sense was the weakest area for the 7th grade.

High absenteeism seemed to be a factor in the performance of Linda's students.
 * Grade 6:**

Literacy may be a factor for a student who has consistently scored low.

Geometry was the weakest area for LInda's class and the 2nd weakest area in the whole grade 6.

Number sense was the weakest area for the whole 6th grade.

In measurement, 93 out of 177 students answered correctly; 19% of the students scored less than 60 % correct. This may be linked with a lack of understanding of the concept of a formula.

Looking at students who are in accelerated groups; some are demonstrating some gaps in skills even though they are accelerated.

Cut scores significantly impacted student scores. Performance was relatively equal across elementary schools.
 * Grade 4:**

Number sense was an area of weakness.

Observation: Number sense appeared to be stronger at grade 3. How could we look at the questions across grades 3-8 to see what conclusions we might draw about student performance in this area?

Suggestion: Could we utilize a mathematical equivalent of Drop Everything and Read?

There was greater disparity across the buildings at grade 3 in performance. KES 71% MES 46% RES 52%
 * Grade 3:**

20 out of 49 students at KES scored a level 4; 7 out of 44 at RES; ;and 11 out of 54 at MES. Alll of the 4's either had a 707 or 770 as a scale score; nothing in-between. 9 of the 20 at KES scored a 770.

681: Students appeared to have answered approx. 80% of the questions correctly, but received a level 2.

Only 8 questions on algebra; students did okay. The number of questions in each area varied tremendously. Number sense and operations is an area of weakness. Measurement was also a weak area.
 * Grade 5:**

Of the students whose scored below a 650 or had at least a 20 point drop (we should look at scale deviations before drawing solid conclusions). Questions missed by this group: Angles and triangles; use of a protractor, fractions, a combination of division and algebra, percentages