Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
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
Final Survey
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Counseling;
Mediation;
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
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
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
References
Ganley, C., & S. Lubienski. (2019, May 9) Current Research on Gender Differences in Math.
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
get-better-grades-than-boys-do/380318/.
Hott, B. L., Isbell, L., Montani, T. O., (2014, December). Strategies and Interventions to Support
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
Absenteeism/House-Bill-410-FAQ.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US
Ohio Department of Education (2019). Ohio School Report Cards. Retrieved from Ohio
Samuels, C. (2016, May 2). Why Are Students with Disabilities Failing Standardized Tests?
blogs.edweek.org/edweek/speced/2016/05/students_disabilities_failing_tests.html.