Analysis of Norton High School Algebra I End-of-Course Assessment Scores

EL 505 Equity Audit and Root Cause Analysis

University of Mount Union

Kristen Reihl
Running Head: Analysis of NHS Algebra I End-of-Course Assessment Scores 2

The purpose of this Equity Audit and Root Cause Analysis is to examine the 2018-2019

Algebra I end-of-course assessment scores at Norton High School and determine what the

contributing factors to the current scores are. This analysis utilizes non-identifying student data

provided by the district, anonymous survey responses from the high school math department,

interviews with the math and special education department heads, and resources to support and

reference when considering the named contributing factors.

Links to Relevant Documents

Equity Audit & Root Cause Analysis Data

Final Survey

Final Survey Results

Math Department Head Interview

Special Education Department Head Interview

District Student Data

Table 1 below organizes the 2018-2019 Algebra I scores of the students at Norton High

School. Within the original spreadsheet, students are listed as numbers and their end-of-course

overall score, end-of-course performance level, math average from 2018-2019, absence hours

from 2018-2019, math grade from 2017-2018, and gender are considered. If a piece of data was

unattainable, the cell was filled in black. The 2017-2018 average math grades were not used in

the data analysis, due to too many data items missing. The colors used for conditional formatting

include red--low scoring/higher absence hours--yellow--mid-level, and greens which generally

mean high scoring/lower absence hours.

After analyzing the data, it was determined that about 67% of the students who took the

Algebra I end-of-course assessment during the 2018-2019 academic year passed with a three or
Running Head: Analysis of NHS Algebra I End-of-Course Assessment Scores 3

higher. That year, about 22% of students taking the Algebra I EOC for the 2018-2019 school

year were on an IEP. One interesting observation is that of those 22%, only 25% passed the state

assessment with a three or higher and of the 78% who are not on IEPS, about 80% passed with a

three or higher. This raises the concern for what is currently being done in the math classroom

for students on IEPs, how effective the instruction really is, and what more could be done to

support these students.

Additionally, in Table 1, you can observe a direct negative correlation between an

increased number of absence hours from school--this is in terms of total absence hours per

academic year--and the number of students who passed the Algebra I end-of-course assessment.

The question that arises from this is how the high school staff can get students to come to school

when other factors in their lives allow or cause them to miss. There are students in the Norton

City School District who are expected to take on the responsibility of caring for and sending

younger siblings to school in the morning, students who are open-enrolled, and/or have a home

life that does not highly value education.

The final concern that the data displays is the difference in scores based on gender on the

end-of-course assessment. Of the 98 males who took the Algebra I EOC, about 57% of them

passed; of the 98 females who took the Algebra I EOC, about 79% of them passed. Generally

speaking, the girls are outperforming boys on the Algebra I end-of-course assessment. The

concern here is what is being done throughout the district to prepare students differently in

mathematics. Is the difference due to maturity? Or, is the education system constructed in a way

that favors the way the female student learns and develops?

Table 1. Norton Performance Levels and Course Grades.

Overall Absence
Performanc 2018-2019 Hours for
IEP e Level - Average 2018-2019 Gender
Running Head: Analysis of NHS Algebra I End-of-Course Assessment Scores 4

Spring
2019 EOC
N 1 X X M
Y 1 F 479.65 M
Y 1 F 316.75 M
N 1 F 173.74 M
Y 1 F 173.33 M
N 1 F 157.51 M
Y 1 F 79.07 F
N 1 F 67.5 M
Y 1 F 38.57 M
N 1 F 32.83 M
N 1 D+ 301.19 F
Y 1 D- 154.45 F
Y 1 D 113.53 M
Y 1 C+ 124.29 F
Y 1 C+ 69.56 M
N 1 C+ 43.43 M
N 1 C+ 7.59 M
N 1 C- 28.83 F
Y 1 C 99 M
Y 1 C 10.39 M
Y 1 C 10.25 M
X 1 B- 122.65 F
Y 1 B- 102.29 M
N 1 B- 31.05 F
N 1 B 53.02 M
Y 1 B 51.79 M
Y 1 B 48.72 M
Y 1 B 34 F
Y 1 B 10.67 F
Y 1 A- 104.41 M
Y 1 A- 49.3 M
Y 2 X X M
N 2 D+ 111.72 M
N 2 D+ 101.45 M
Y 2 D+ 97.96 M
N 2 D+ 74.87 M
N 2 D+ 26.11 F
N 2 D+ 2.09 M
Y 2 D- 260.42 F
Running Head: Analysis of NHS Algebra I End-of-Course Assessment Scores 5

N 2 D- 80.12 M
Y 2 D- 37.73 M
N 2 C+ 163.54 F
N 2 C+ 20.52 F
Y 2 C+ 0.18 M
Y 2 C- 331.13 M
N 2 C- 72.68 M
N 2 C- 28.98 M
N 2 C 153.79 M
N 2 C 94.97 F
Y 2 C 68.71 F
N 2 C 66.56 F
Y 2 C 49.9 M
N 2 C 18.17 F
N 2 C 6.86 M
Y 2 B+ 22.3 M
N 2 B+ 10.75 M
Y 2 B- 84.38 M
N 2 B- 56.87 F
N 2 B- 45.11 F
Y 2 B 38.13 F
N 2 B 16.42 M
Y 2 B 1.15 F
Y 2 A 57.85 M
N 3 D+ 194.16 F
N 3 D+ 149.16 M
N 3 D+ 42.93 M
N 3 D- 68.7 M
N 3 D 94.79 F
N 3 D 69.92 M
N 3 C+ 203.38 F
N 3 C+ 80.43 M
N 3 C+ 66.21 M
N 3 C+ 62.42 F
N 3 C+ 40.82 F
Y 3 C+ 33.86 F
Y 3 C 335.11 M
N 3 C 246.19 F
Y 3 C 182.06 M
N 3 C 105.77 F
N 3 C 103.29 F
Running Head: Analysis of NHS Algebra I End-of-Course Assessment Scores 6

N 3 C 85.08 M
N 3 C 42.42 F
N 3 C 38.86 M
N 3 C 33.76 F
Y 3 C 32.49 F
N 3 C 29.08 F
N 3 C 21.12 F
N 3 C 5.53 F
N 3 B+ 53.3 F
N 3 B+ 12.63 M
N 3 B+ 10.63 M
N 3 B+ 7.8 F
Y 3 B- 167.35 F
N 3 B- 149.71 F
N 3 B- 111.45 F
N 3 B- 90.96 M
N 3 B- 66.35 F
Y 3 B- 44.44 F
N 3 B- 36.66 M
N 3 B- 33.75 M
N 3 B- 28.17 M
N 3 B- 16.09 F
N 3 B- 11.46 F
Y 3 B 168.05 F
N 3 B 119.45 F
N 3 B 111.12 F
Y 3 B 105.18 M
N 3 B 86.32 F
N 3 B 73.74 F
N 3 B 67.6 F
N 3 B 62.14 M
N 3 B 57.15 M
N 3 B 47.25 F
Y 3 B 46.78 M
N 3 B 36.23 M
N 3 A- 44.6 F
N 3 A- 41.51 F
N 3 A- 29.49 M
N 3 A- 10.91 F
N 3 A- 4.38 M
N 3 A 64.52 F
Running Head: Analysis of NHS Algebra I End-of-Course Assessment Scores 7

Y 3 A 20.27 F
N 3 A 20.25 M
Y 3 A 0.92 M
N 4 X X M
N 4 C+ 80.13 F
N 4 C+ 22.48 M
N 4 C+ 16.45 M
N 4 C 128.78 M
Y 4 C 77.73 M
N 4 C 77.57 M
N 4 C 72.14 F
N 4 C 53.36 M
N 4 C 44.9 M
N 4 B+ 97.91 F
N 4 B+ 36.31 F
N 4 B+ 24 F
N 4 B+ 12.55 F
N 4 B- 101.71 F
N 4 B- 50.3 F
N 4 B- 21.88 M
N 4 B- 16.18 M
N 4 B 88.67 F
N 4 B 67.44 M
N 4 B 63.6 F
N 4 B 54.45 F
N 4 B 41.8 M
N 4 B 40.14 F
N 4 B 32.28 M
N 4 B 18.22 M
N 4 A+ 41.78 F
N 4 A+ 30.39 F
N 4 A+ 1.92 F
N 4 A- 147.15 F
N 4 A- 91.52 F
N 4 A- 77.23 F
N 4 A- 49.75 F
N 4 A- 45.7 F
N 4 A- 26.31 M
N 4 A- 21.47 M
N 4 A- 20.88 M
N 4 A- 3.94 F
Running Head: Analysis of NHS Algebra I End-of-Course Assessment Scores 8

N 4 A- 0 F
N 4 A 127.12 F
N 4 A 110.57 F
N 4 A 107.06 F
N 4 A 73.5 F
N 4 A 71.6 F
N 4 A 54.81 F
N 4 A 54.09 F
N 4 A 46.7 M
N 4 A 42.82 M
N 4 A 37.43 M
N 4 A 37.2 M
N 4 A 32.43 F
N 4 A 29.33 M
N 4 A 19.75 F
N 4 A 17.34 M
N 4 A 14.61 F
N 4 A 10.29 F
N 4 A 9.4 M
N 5 A+ 16.38 F
N 5 A+ 9.58 F
N 5 A+ 0 F
N 5 A- 45.6 M
N 5 A- 44.4 F
N 5 A- 5.31 M
N 5 A 142.57 F
N 5 A 75.17 M
N 5 A 39.81 M
N 5 A 28.82 F
N 5 A 24.36 M
N 5 A 16 F
N 5 A 15.88 F
N 5 A 2.75 M
N 5 A 0 M

Survey and Interview Insights

The group of educators chosen to complete the equity audit survey specially designed to

address the correlations discussed above was the entire high school mathematics department. The
Running Head: Analysis of NHS Algebra I End-of-Course Assessment Scores 9

math department at Norton High School consists of six content teachers--four females and two

males--and a female intervention specialist who focuses solely on math. One male and one

female math teacher and the intervention specialist each have had twenty years of experience

teaching at NHS. The department head has ten years of experience at the high school. The last

three members have five or less years of teaching experience--one has three years of experience

at a high school in Arizona. The response to the passage rate for the 2018-2019 Algebra I end-of-

course state assessment being 67.3% ranged from somewhat surprised to not surprised at all. The

following factors were shared as possible contributors: the large number of students on IEPs;

ninth grade students not being motivated to do their very best on the end-of-course assessment;

the tests given in Algebra class are not similar to the end-of-course assessment so students have

not practiced answering questions in the same format; student behaviors; low student motivation

to learn and be challenged; mis-alignment of curricula; students lack of resources (not having

DESMOS--an online graphing calculator that is embedded in the end-of-course assessment);

open enrollment; and students who were absent and missed content. This response displays an

understanding by the department that IEPs and absenteeism are contributing factors--factors that

were observed in the data compilation and comparison previously.

The concern with the fact that most students at Norton High School who have an IEP

struggled to pass the Algebra I end-of-course assessment for the 2018-2019 academic year is

whether or not they are receiving appropriate instruction. Based on the results of the survey, a

question reading “Where 1 is "Not surprised at all" and 5 is "Completely shocked," what is your

reaction to the following statistic? The percentage of students who are on an IEP who attempted

the 2018/19 Algebra I end-of-course state assessment is 22.4%.” The results indicate that three

teachers answered with a 1, one teacher answered with a 2, one teacher answered with a 3, and
Running Head: Analysis of NHS Algebra I End-of-Course Assessment Scores 10

one teacher answered with a 4. This survey also shares that some of the primary factors include

students lack of basic computational math and problem-solving skills, lack of exposure to the test

format, and the fact that for a student to qualify for an IEP, the student would have to have a

below-achievement score in one or more subjects. According to Samuels (2016), “about 60

percent of students ages 6-21 are in regular classrooms the vast majority of their school day.” At

Norton High School, most students on IEPs are placed in the general-level Algebra I co-taught

course. After interviewing the head of the special education department at the high school,

insight has been presented that many students at Norton High School use their IEP as a “crutch”

and really should have been removed from an IEP years ago. Of the twenty students on the

department head’s caseload, it is believed that three should be currently removed. Multiply this

by the seven intervention specialists in the high school and get approximately twenty-one

students in the high school who are receiving accommodations and modifications that they might

not need. Could this be due to the increased dollar amount per student who is identified as having

special learning needs? Please recognize this is an observation based on a professional opinion.

The second major contributing factor that will be addressed is the effect absenteeism has

on a student’s Algebra I state assessment score. When the breakdown of the percentages of

students passing the Algebra I end-of-course assessment based on the number of hours the

student was absent throughout the same academic year was shared, the responses from the

survey indicate little surprise. All educators felt that the correlation makes sense and one

comment reads, “This is such a strong indicator that as a district [we] need to look into ways to

get students to attend school more regularly.” After speaking with the head of the special

education department at the high school, discussion of House Bill 410 and the NCS Attendance

Policy for making up assignments occurred. In the plan of action, House Bill 410 and the NCS
Running Head: Analysis of NHS Algebra I End-of-Course Assessment Scores 11

Attendance Policy will be discussed in further detail relating to how it might help to benefit the

district’s high percentage of chronic absenteeism.

The final contributing factor to be discussed within the survey is the gender difference

relating to the passage rates of the Algebra I end-of-course assessment. The percentage of the

females who passed the 2018-2019 Algebra I end-of-course assessment is 78.6% and the

percentage of the males who passed is 57.1%. Some of the believed factors to contribute to this

include girls being more mature and the social norms placed on males and females throughout

their educational careers. According to Gnaulati (2014) in his recall of a study by Claire

Cameron of the Center for the Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning at the University of

Virginia, “They discovered that boys were a whole year behind girls in all areas of self-

regulation. By the end of kindergarten, boys were just beginning to acquire the self-regulatory

skills with which girls had started the year.” As stated by one of the survey responders, “The

majority of girls know what is expected of them and do it. Even if they are not understanding the

material, they try and get exposed to it (notes, HW, etc.) which may pay off in the end - given

this data!” Last year, 98 males and 98 females attempted the Algebra I state assessment with the

previously stated passage rates. The head of the special education department at Norton High

School appeared to be surprised at this statistic given that females are usually directed toward the

language arts and other non-STEM courses. She also added that part of this could have to do

with the need for an incentive for male students. As described by Gnaulati (2014) “...boys

approach schoolwork differently. They are more performance-oriented. Studying for and taking

tests taps into their competitive instincts.” The question to analyze is how can both males and

females feel the necessary motivation and need to put forth appropriate effort in their
Running Head: Analysis of NHS Algebra I End-of-Course Assessment Scores 12

assignments? Additionally, is there something that could be done in the classroom to allow male

students to be successful?

Plan of Action

The general-level Algebra I course is designed to cover a broad overview of the standards

aimed to prepare the students for the state assessment. In addition to the course being a co-taught

environment--a math teacher and intervention specialist, or two math teachers--the course uses

many of the recommended strategies to assist students with the use of their metacognitive skills--

the use of “think-alouds,” graphic organizers, and direct instruction paired with the modeling of

self-monitoring, self-talk, and self-checks (Hott et al., 2014, p. 5). According to Hott et al.

(2014), “Metacognition also involves strategizing, monitoring success and effort, and knowing

when to change directions or to try a different approach to problem solving” (p. 5). It appears as

though promoting problem-solving is strong within the co-taught Algebra I class; however, the

question to consider is could this course be holding students back by not exposing them to

content on a deeper-level? The next step with this contributor is to analyze the material and

determine if some higher depth-of-knowledge questions could be incorporated to stretch the

higher students in the course and expose all students to such questions prior to test day.

The issue of chronic absenteeism at Norton High School has been an ongoing battle for

administration and much work on the classroom teacher. Currently, 19.3% of Norton’s high

school students are chronically absent. When compared to similar area schools, Barberton High

school has 34.0%, Wadsworth has 8.4%, and Copley High School has 15.9% of students being

considered chronically absent (Ohio Department of Education, 2019).. A discussion should occur

between the previously mentioned districts to determine what strategies have been used to try to
Running Head: Analysis of NHS Algebra I End-of-Course Assessment Scores 13

lessen the percentages. According to House Bill 410, some of the strategies a district can be

expected to use to reduce student absence include the following:

Notification of student absence to the parent or guardian;

Development and implementation of an absence intervention plan, which may include

supportive services for students and families;

Counseling;

Parent education and parenting programs;

Mediation;

Intervention programs available through juvenile authorities; and

Referral for truancy, if applicable. (Ohio Department of Education, 2017, p. 1).

These strategies should be considered when determining the appropriate plan of action to address

the increased number of absences in the district. Additionally, the Norton City Schools Absence

Policy indicates that students are to not receive credit for assignments on days that they are

marked unexcused. Provided the teachers could all enforce this policy and not offer even partial

credit, more students might be more inclined to attend school.

The final area of concern is the gender gap with passage rates on the Algebra I state

assessment. An article published by the National Council for Teachers of Mathematics suggests

that “Gender differences on math tests tend to be more pronounced when the content of the

assessment is less related to the material that is taught in school (for example, on the SAT-Math

as opposed to a math test in school)” (Ganley & Lubienski, 2019). It is still believed that female

attitudes and anxiety towards the subject of math are learned and males naturally are willing to

“think outside the box” with problem-solving skills and have higher spatial abilities (Ganley &

Lubienski, 2019). The next step to determine what is causing the large gap in male and female
Running Head: Analysis of NHS Algebra I End-of-Course Assessment Scores 14

achievement on the Algebra I state test--about a 20% gap with the male passage rates being

lower--is to examine the motivation the students have with doing well. Do the males have

enough of an incentive given the fact that there are no repercussions to failing a grade or state

assessment in the middle school? Additionally, it would be beneficial to examine the attitudes

the elementary teachers within the district have towards mathematics--this could affect the

attitudes of the students we are receiving in the high school.

In sum, the three contributing factors that must be considered within the plan of action

include the instruction provided to students with IEPs, how to get students to attend school

regularly, and to further examine the contributing factors to such a large gender gap for the

Algebra I end-of-course assessment. The data from the 2019-2020 state assessment will be

reviewed in comparison to determine if there are correlations and worsening or improving trends.

Reflection

This equity audit and root cause analysis has shown me some of the data I have access to

as a general education teacher. Additionally, I feel that I have gained confidence in asking both

teachers and teacher leaders some of the harder, open-ended questions regarding IEPs,

curriculum/course layouts, and state test scores. I think that this is one of those projects that you

can extend as far as you choose. I would one day love to analyze the vertical alignment of math

courses within the district and then survey all teachers of math--elementary through high

school--of their concerns, feelings toward the subject, struggles, successes, etc. This assignment

really motivated me for a future position as a curriculum director or teacher leader.

Running Head: Analysis of NHS Algebra I End-of-Course Assessment Scores 15

References

Ganley, C., & S. Lubienski. (2019, May 9) Current Research on Gender Differences in Math.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. www.nctm.org/Publications/Teaching-

Children-Mathematics/Blog/Current-Research-on-Gender-Differences-in-Math/.

Gnaulati, E. (2014, September 23). Why Girls Tend to Get Better Grades Than Boys Do. The

Atlantic Media Company. www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/09/why-girls-

get-better-grades-than-boys-do/380318/.

Hott, B. L., Isbell, L., Montani, T. O., (2014, December). Strategies and Interventions to Support

Students with Mathematics Disabilities. Council for Learning Disabilities.

https://council-for-learning-disabilities.org/wp-

content/uploads/2014/12/Math_Disabilities_Support.pdf

Ohio Department of Education (2017, December). House Bill 410 Requirements. Retrieved from

Ohio Dept. of Edu. Website: https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Chronic-

Absenteeism/House-Bill-410-FAQ.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US

Ohio Department of Education (2019). Ohio School Report Cards. Retrieved from Ohio

Dept. of Edu. Website: https://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/school/achievement/027995

Samuels, C. (2016, May 2). Why Are Students with Disabilities Failing Standardized Tests?

Education Week - On Special Education.

blogs.edweek.org/edweek/speced/2016/05/students_disabilities_failing_tests.html.