Running head: MATH MDTP CUT-SCORE VALIDATION
Math MDTP Cut-Score Validation
Rick Fillman
Institutional Research Analyst
Planning and Research Office
Cabrillo College
Summer 2013
MATH MDTP CUT-SCORE VALIDATION Introduction
Validation of placement cut-scores is periodically required. The first part of
this report will examine the responses from a recent survey of instructors
and students regarding the appropriateness of their placement into courses
in the Mathematics core sequence. It is intended to validate the cut-scores
currently used for placement in the Cabrillo Assessment Center. The second
part is an analysis of how the placements impact various demographic
groups.
Consequential Validity
In order to assess the accuracy and validity of placement, students and
instructors from randomly selected sections of MATH-254A Essential
Mathematics - First Half, MATH-254CM Essential Mathematics – Computer
Mediated, MATH-154 Elementary Algebra1, MATH-152 Intermediate Algebra,
as well as selected sections of transfer-level Math were surveyed early in the
Spring 2012 semester as to the appropriateness of their placement.
Additional surveying was also conducted early in the Fall 2012 semester, in
order to increase the number of respondents in MATH-245CM. In the survey,
students indicated, whether their skills and knowledge caused them to feel
they were under-qualified, qualified, or over-qualified for the course material.
Likewise, instructors in these sections rated each student as to the
appropriateness of their placement.
Assessing the consequences of placement in this fashion is known as
Consequential Validity. Students and instructors must be surveyed near the
beginning of the semester, usually in the fourth or fifth week. It is expected
that at this point students have been sufficiently exposed to the curriculum
to gauge their own preparedness, but not so far into the course as to have
had a chance to master the material. Similarly, it is expected that, at this
point, instructors have a reasonable understanding of their students’ abilities.
Math placement uses the scores from the MDPT Algebra Readiness test or
the MDPT Algebra test plus multiple measures points. Students may take
either test, though scoring too low on the MDTP Algebra test may result not
in a placement, but in a recommendation to take the Algebra Readiness test,
instead. The placement cut-scores are outline on the Cabrillo Assessment
office webpage “Math and English Assessment Scoring Criteria” (see
Appendix A).
1
MATH‐154A Elementary Algebra – First Half was not offered in the Spring 2012 semester. MATH MDTP CUT-SCORE VALIDATION The assessment process for Math places a student into one of four levels:
MATH-254 (level) Essential Mathematics
MATH-154 (level) Elementary Algebra
MATH-152 (level) Intermediate Algebra
Transfer level MATH (various courses)
Student and Instructor Surveys
The chart that follows shows how many sections were targeted, the total
section enrollment, and the survey yield from each.
Sections, Enrollment, and included responses
Secti ons Surveyed
MATH‐254
MATH‐154
MATH‐152
Transfer
Enrol l ed
22
15
20
31
736
591
829
1134
Excl uded
400
472
638
1043
Ins tructor Students ra ti ngs ra ti ngs i ncl uded
i ncl uded
325
118
190
85
254
93
156
68
Enrollment records were matched with Assessment data, and only students
whose enrollment follows a recent2 Cabrillo placement were included in the
analysis. The “Excluded” column represents students who qualified for
enrollment in the course by way of some other means: self-assessment3,
promotion (successful completion of the prerequisite course), or via an
equivalency from an external exam or from a course taken at another
institution. Generally, instructors were able to rate all students on their
rosters. Student self-ratings were obtained from the students in attendance
on the day of the survey. The larger number of exclusions among students
in the higher level courses represents the fact that a smaller proportion of
students in these courses qualify via a placement; a much larger number
qualify by way of satisfactory completion of the prerequisite course.
Instructor and student surveys were conducted in electronic format for all
online classes. The remaining surveys were conducted in class using paper
surveys. Samples of each of the survey instruments are presented in
Appendix B.
2
The oldest assessment test results for valid respondents were from 2009. There were 7 valid respondents with results from 2009, 76 from 2010, 454 from 2011, and 192 from the 2012. 3
Self‐assessment would apply to the MATH‐254 (Essential Mathematics) level, only, as students have the option to start with the lowest level course in the sequence, without testing. MATH MDTP CUT-SCORE VALIDATION Although students were questioned as to the method of their placement,
these responses were not used. (The prompt was included in case ID
matching with student system assessment results were to become
problematic.)
Agreement
A threshold of 75% agreement is required for validity4, otherwise, the
mathematics department faculty should consider an adjustment in the cutscores. At least 75% of students surveyed need to perceive themselves as
properly placed. Similarly, and independently, faculty must rate at least
75% of students as appropriately placed. Their respective ratings as to the
appropriateness of student placement are shown in the following table:
Rated as appropriately placed
I n s tru cto r
MATH‐254
MATH‐154
MATH‐152
Transfer
S tu d e n t
79.3%
77.1%
68.9%
75.3%
87.0%
86.0%
88.5%
88.2%
In other words, instructors find, after rating students individually, that
79.3% percent of students who placed into MATH 254-level courses were
placed appropriately. When students in the same sections rated their own
preparedness for the course, 87.0% of those who placed into MATH-254
courses agree that their placement was appropriate. The student and
instructor agreement regarding the appropriateness of their placement into
math sections meets the placement validity threshold for three of the four
placement levels. Instructor agreement as to appropriate placement into
MATH-152 (Intermediate Algebra) does not meet the threshold.
The standard error (the standard deviation of the sample means) is a gauge
of accuracy – the smaller the number, the more likely the sample is an
accurate representation of the larger population. The standard error for the
validation surveys is shown below:
Standard Error
Ins tructor
MATH‐254
MATH‐154
MATH‐152
Transfer
0.025
0.042
0.035
0.053
Student
0.017
0.016
0.014
0.011
4
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO), Standards, Policies and Procedures for the Evaluation of Assessment Instruments Used in the California Community Colleges, 4th EDITION, REVISED MARCH 2001. http://extranet.cccco.edu/Portals/1/SSSP/Matriculation/Assessment/ApprovedGuidelinesMarch2001.pdf MATH MDTP CUT-SCORE VALIDATION Those whose placement were not rated as appropriate may be perceived as
either over or under-qualified for the course material. The following table
completes the dataset, showing all of the student and instructor
preparedness ratings for students who placed into the course.
Instructor/Student Ratings
Student
Instructor
Student should be I a m not I a m Student is Student is placed qua l i fi ed qua l i fi ed
higher
struggling
fine
MATH‐254
MATH‐154
MATH‐152
Transfer
13.8%
18.6%
29.5%
17.6%
79.4%
77.1%
68.9%
75.3%
6.8%
4.2%
1.6%
7.1%
6.7%
11.8%
6.4%
5.9%
87.0%
86.0%
88.5%
88.2%
I a m over‐
qua l i fi ed
6.3%
2.2%
5.1%
5.9%
Finally, when pairs of responses are examined, it is found that students and
instructors are not always in agreement with each other. When a pairedsamples t-test is performed, it reveals no statistically significant differences
between the pairs of instructor and student ratings for MATH-154 and
Transfer level math. However, perceptions regarding individual students’
preparedness for MATH-254 and for MATH-152 are not shared between
instructors and students; for these courses, the paired-samples t-test
reveals that the instructor and student paired ratings are significantly
different from each other. 5
Threshold Not Met for MATH-52 Intermediate Algebra
Instructors find, after rating students individually, that only 68.9% percent
of students who placed into MATH-152 level courses were placed
appropriately. In fact, instructors rate nearly 30% of MATH-152 students
as less than prepared.
Instructor Ratings of students placing into Math‐152
Student i s s truggl i ng a nd s houl d be pl a ced Student i s l ower.
fi ne.
MATH‐152
29.5%
68.9%
Student i s not a dequa tel y cha l l enged a nd s houl d be pl a ced hi gher.
1.6%
5
p=.037 for MATH‐254, p=.210 for MATH‐154, p<.001 for MATH‐152, and p=.135 for Transfer level. MATH MDTP CUT-SCORE VALIDATION Next, to better understand the context in which this is occurring, instructor
ratings for the excluded group are brought back into the analysis. These
are the students who qualified for MATH-152 by means other than via
Assessment/Placement, for example, via promotion (usually) or by an
equivalency. In the chart shown below, the instructor ratings for all four
math assessment levels are shown, broken out to show instructor ratings for
the included (those placed), as well as those excluded (qualified by other
means).
Instructor Ratings of Math students
Student is
s truggling
Student is
and s hould
fine.
be placed
low er.
MATH‐254
Pl a ce d
Promote d/othe r
MATH‐154
Pl a ce d
Promote d/othe r
MATH‐152
Pl a ce d
Promote d/othe r
Transfer
Pl a ce d
Promote d/othe r
13.8%
13.3%
18.6%
17.3%
29.5%
25.2%
17.6%
15.3%
Student is not
adequately
challenged
and s hould be
placed higher.
79.4%
77.6%
77.1%
78.2%
68.9%
73.7%
75.3%
82.9%
6.8%
9.1%
4.2%
4.5%
1.6%
1.1%
7.1%
1.8%
In contrast with the other math levels, it is observed that instructors are
rating proportionately more students in MATH-152 courses as underprepared
than at other levels. In fact, when the placed and excluded groups are
combined for MATH-152 students, instructors rated 26.2% (over onequarter) as underprepared, whether they qualified via Placement or
otherwise. Given these circumstances, it seems unlikely that validating
placement cut-scores at a 75% threshold can occur for MATH-152.
Differences between MATH-254A and MATH-254CM
Students place into the MATH-254 level (not MATH-254 courses) and then
can select to enroll in one of two MATH-254 course options:
MATH-254A Essential Mathematics – First Half6
MATH 254CM Essentials Mathematics – Computer Mediated
6
MATH‐254A is followed by a second semester in MATH‐254B ‐ Essential Mathematics ‐ Second Half. The lowest level curriculum is split between the two courses, taking two semesters to complete. By contrast, in MATH‐254CM, the material is completed in one semester. MATH MDTP CUT-SCORE VALIDATION Since the placement validation is about placement into levels, when data for
the MATH-254 level students are aggregated, a pro-forma validation of the
existing cut-scores results, as noted in the Agreement section of this report.
However, the pedagogy of the two courses is rather different, and the
instruction differs both in terms of pace and method of delivery. Examined
separately, instructor agreement regarding the appropriateness of student
placement differs greatly between the two courses, and dips below the
validation threshold of 75% for students enrolled in MATH-254CM.
Instructors rate MATH-254CM students as under-prepared at a rate nearly
four times that applied to students in MATH-254A sections. There is much
less divergence among students, who, in both courses, agree that they are
appropriately placed. The chart that follows shows the rating for the
students in the respective courses.
MATH‐254A vs. MATH‐254CM Instructor/Student Ratings
Student
Instructor
Student i s Student i s s truggl i ng
fi ne
MATH‐254A
MATH‐254CM
7.1%
28.7%
84.8%
67.3%
Student shoul d be pl aced hi gher
8.0%
4.0%
I a m not q ua l i fi e d
5.6%
10.2%
I a m qu a l i fi e d
88.2%
83.1%
I a m ove r‐
qu a l i fi e d
6.2%
6.8%
Instructors heavily rate students as under-prepared in one course, but not
the other. To understand the context, instructor ratings and student selfratings for the excluded group are brought back into the analysis. Since this
is the lowest level in the math sequence, it must be assumed that the
“excluded from analysis” groups consist of students who opted to by-pass
the Assessment/Placement test, and therefore “self-placed” by choosing to
start at the lowest level course in the sequence.
When all survey responses for the MATH-254 placement level are evaluated,
the instructor rating pattern does not significantly change. Instructors still
rate a large number (25.2%) of all MATH-254CM students as underprepared, while rating 7.0% of all students enrolled in MATH-254A as underprepared. Are instructors regarding the curriculum of the two courses
differently? The mean instructor rating for students enrolled in MATH-254A
is 2.03; the mean instructor rating for students enrolled in MATH-254CM is
1.88. There is a statistically significant (p<.001) difference in instructor
perceptions of preparedness between the two MATH-254 level courses.
However, there may be other influences, beyond the course, which have yet
to be identified.
MATH MDTP CUT-SCORE VALIDATION On the other hand, when all survey results are evaluated, the percentage of
students regarding themselves as under-prepared increases among those
enrolled in both courses (from 10.2% to 13.2% for MATH-254CM students,
and increasing from 5.6% to 9.2% for MATH-254A students). Student
perceptions seem to vary not by course, but instead as to whether they took
the Assessment test or whether they self-placed. Those who self-place rate
themselves as slightly less prepared. For example, the mean student selfrating for students who took the Assessment test is 1.99, while the mean
student self-rating for students who opted to self-place is 1.95. However,
this observed difference does not attain statistical significance (p=.188).
Disproportionate Impact
This section of the report examines mathematics course placement through
the equity lens. If all groups were equal, then the proportion of group
members who place into a particular level will match that of the population
tested. The extent to which these proportions are not in alignment is known
as disproportionate impact. Specific attention is warranted when
disproportionality exceeds the “80/20 rule”. Per EEOC guidelines, any group
that falls below 80% of the majority group's placement rate has been
disproportionately impacted7. Disproportionate impact exists when the
proportion of some group falls below 80% of the “dominant group’s” score.
Ethnicity example:
The dominant or majority group is Whites.
36.8% of White students place into MATH-152 or higher
80% of 36.8% = 29.5%
So the expectation is that the rate for each of the other groups should come
to at least this level; groups whose MATH-152 or higher placement fall below
this rate are impacted.
For math, disproportionate impact will be analyzed for two placement levels:
first, for placement into MATH-152 Intermediate Algebra or higher, and
second, for placement into transfer-level math. An examination of both is
warranted since the math curriculum diverges. Drawing a line at completion
of MATH-152 Intermediate Algebra is appropriate as this is sufficient for the
Associate’s Degree. However, requirements for students pursuing math,
science, and certain other majors will dictate completion of transfer level
math courses.
7
The 80% rule is rooted in labor law regarding testing in hiring practices. It was codified in 1978 in the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures document issued by the EEOC ‐ the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Department of Labor, and Department of Justice. Cabrillo College adopted the criteria in the 2004 Student Equity Plan: http://www.cabrillo.edu/services/pro/reports/docs/CabrilloSEP2004v4.pdf MATH MDTP CUT-SCORE VALIDATION As demographic data is generally available for all students, this analysis will
be performed for the entire population taking the math placement tests
during the testing period - about 2200 persons. Placement results by
ethnicity, age, gender, and disability status are examined.
Disproportionate Impact for MATH-152 (or higher) Placement
Disproportionate impact by ethnicity is evident, and could be found among
students identifying as African American, Latino, Native American, and
among non-respondents. Clearly, the Latino group is the largest, with 972
students, placing into MATH-152 (or higher) at an average rate 12.3
percentage points behind that of Whites. African Americans, with only 26
students testing, placed into MATH-152 at a rate 34.0 percentage points
behind the majority group. The non-respondents group, numbering 52
students, placed into MATH-152 at a rate 12.9 percentage points behind the
majority.
Age is a factor for math placement, and older students are
disproportionately impacted. While the placement rate into MATH-152 or
higher for the majority 18-20 year-old group is 60.7%, this rate declines for
each successively older age grouping. Increasing levels of disproportionate
impact are indicated as age increases. For gender, although females slightly
out-place males, the rate of placement into MATH-152 or higher by males
lags the females placement rate by only a few points.
Students who have received services from the Disabled Students Programs &
Services (DSPS) are categorized by their type of disability. While impact can
be identified for several of the disability groups, only the “Learning Disabled”
group has sufficient numbers to carry forward any analysis (at least 10 are
needed). Appendix C shows detailed data regarding the impacts on the
respective demographic groups for placement into MATH-152 or higher.
Disproportionate Impact for Transfer-level Placement
While transfer-level math is not a requirement for all students, certain
programs or majors, mainly those in the STEM [Science Technology
Engineering and Math] majors, will require completion of one or more
courses at this level. While affecting far fewer students overall, the general
profile of disproportionate impact is quite similar to that for the MATH-152 or
higher groups. Impact by ethnicity is evident, and is found among students
identifying as African American, Latino, Native American, and among Nonrespondents. Age remains a factor, with disproportional impact indicated for
MATH MDTP CUT-SCORE VALIDATION all groups older than the 18-20 year-old group majority group.
Disproportionate impact is not indicated for gender. For disability status,
impact is indicated only for the “Learning Disabled” group. Appendix D
contains detailed data regarding the impacts on the respective demographic
groups for placement into Transfer-level math.
Summary
Cut-scores for mathematics course placement currently in use in the
Assessment Center at Cabrillo College are placing students into courses in a
manner such that at least 75% of both student and instructors, early in the
semester, will agree as to the appropriateness of their placement in three of
the four possible placement levels. Instructors’ ratings of student
preparedness for MATH-152 Intermediate Algebra did not meet the 75%
threshold. Adjustments in the cut scores for this level should be considered.
Placement into the mathematics curriculum disproportionately impacts a
large number of Latino students, who are placed into remedial sections out
of proportion to their share of the population. Students identifying as
African-American, and Native American are also similarly impacted, although
in smaller numbers. Additionally, older students are proportionally more
likely to be placed into remedial courses.
The scope of this study is limited to the validation of the current cut-scores
as used for mathematics course placement. The question of the overall
efficacy of the Assessment Placement system is a larger question.
Acknowledgements
The data collection effort as for the cut-score validation surveys is
substantial. Coordinating surveys of instructors and students in some 88
separate sections of English involved countless emails and phone calls, not
to mention the lots of leg work and careful handling and recording of
thousands of individual survey data. For all this work, Judy Cassada,
Institutional Research Specialist, deserves a big thank you.
MATH MDTP CUT-SCORE VALIDATION Appendix A
[Extracted from Cabrillo Assessment Office Web page:
http://www.cabrillo.edu/services/assessment/scoring_criteria.html]
______________________________________________________________________________
MDTP MATH --- choose one assessment:
Choice 1: Algebra Readiness


For students with basic math or no math classroom experience
50 questions/45 minutes
Your Algebra Readiness
Score:
Places you into:
0-25
Math 254 - Essential Math
26-50
OR
Math 154 - Elementary Algebra
Choice 2: Algebra


For students with Intermediate Algebra or Algebra II classroom experience
45 questions/45 minutes
Your Algebra
Score:
Places you into:
1-11
Placement not determined. Recommends you take
Algebra Readiness/Arithmetic Test or retest in
Algebra
12-23
Math 152 - Intermediate Algebra or Math 153Geometry
Transfer level math: Math 2 ,3 ,4, 10, 12,13, 15, or
18
Recommendation from the math department: It is strongly recommended that students re-assess
if their course preparation (either prerequisite course work or assessment score) is more than two
years old.
24-45
Appendix B – Survey materials Cabrillo College Test Validation Survey Please complete this survey even if you have filled it out for another class. This is a State requirement for Cabrillo’s accreditation. Your responses go directly to Cabrillo’s Planning & Research Office where they are kept strictly confidential. Thank you! Name: __________________________________________________ Student I.D. Number______________________
1. How did you qualify for this class?
 Cabrillo assessment placement
 Assessment placement from another school
 Completed prerequisite course
 Successfully challenged the prerequisite
 Other (please specify): _______________________
2. To what degree do you have the appropriate skills and/or knowledge to take this class?
 I am overqualified
 I am qualified
 I am not completely qualified
3. To what extent are personal reasons (illness, job/family responsibilities, personal problems, etc.)
interfering with your performance in this class?
 Not at all
 Somewhat
 Very much
Printed on 100% post consumer waste recycled fiber. Cabrillo College Test Validation Survey, Math 2012
1. Cabrillo College Assessment Survey
This is a State requirement for Cabrillo’s accreditation. Your responses go directly to Cabrillo’s Planning & Research Office where they are kept strictly confidential. Thank you! 1. For which course are you taking this survey?
6 *2. Please type in your name and student ID number in the spaces
provided. Please complete the survey even if you have filled it out for
another class. Thank you!
Name:
Student ID:
3. How did you qualify for this class?
j Cabrillo assessment placement
k
l
m
n
j Assessment placement from another school
k
l
m
n
j Completed prerequisite course
k
l
m
n
j Successfully challenged the prerequisite
k
l
m
n
Other (please specify) 4. To what degree do you have the appropriate skills and/or knowledge to take this class?
j I am not completely qualified.
k
l
m
n
j I am qualified.
k
l
m
n
j I am overqualified.
k
l
m
n
5. To what extent are personal reasons (illness, job/family responsibilities, personal
problems, etc.) interfering with your performance in this class?
j Not at all
k
l
m
n
j Somewhat
k
l
m
n
j Very much
k
l
m
n
Page 1
Friday, February 24, 2012
Dear Math Instructors,
As you are aware, all placement assessments must be validated on a six year cycle. This validation study is of
the cut scores for the assessment/placement tests we currently use from the Chancellor’s list of approved
instruments.
To accomplish this current process, please distribute, then collect, the enclosed student survey in this
randomly selected section. Administering this short survey should take about 10 minutes of class time, and
asks students if they believe they have been placed in the correct level. This is consequential validation, and is
one of the quickest and most commonly used forms of cut score validation, required by the California
Community College’s Chancellor’s Office. The results will be tallied by Cabrillo’s Planning & Research Office
(PRO) and reported shortly after final grades are reported.
Before distributing the survey forms please read or paraphrase the following statement:
“I am about to give you a quick survey that will ask you how you feel about the difficulty level of
this class. You will need to fill in your name, student I.D. number and class section number on
the form [give them the class section number from the roster]. Then you will circle the statement
on the form that best describes how you feel about this class.
This survey will be used to help validate our English [or Reading] placement exams so that
when a student takes the placement test the placement score accurately reflects the skills needed
in different class levels. It is an important part of how students are placed in the correct class
and helps prevent students from enrolling in a class that is too easy or too difficult. Your
participation is appreciated.”
As faculty, your part in the survey is to complete the enclosed roster, indicating how you match each student’s
skills and the level of challenge presented by the course. To do this, place one of the following signs next to
each student’s name on the provided roster.
Mark
Meaning
+ (a plus sign)
Student is not adequately challenged and should be placed higher
= (an equal sign)
Student is fine
–
Student is struggling and should be placed lower
(a minus sign)
Please Return these Materials no later than Friday, March 9:
To either the NAS Division Office, or send via campus mail to: Craig Hayward’s mail box, or Planning
& Research Office (PRO) mail box.
Please contact Judy Cassada at 477-5577, or email
jucassad@cabrillo.edu with any questions. Thank you very much for participating in the study.
Margery Regalado, Dean
Counseling & Educational Support Services
Renée M. Kilmer
Vice President, Instruction
Craig Hayward, Director
Planning, Research & Knowledge Systems
Appendix C
Disproportionate Impact by Ethnicity
Non‐
Placement African Hispanic/La Multiple/Ot Native Responden
Asian
tino
her
American
ts
White
Levels American
MATH‐254
16
9
340
19
6
21
161
MATH‐154
4
13
197
29
3
8
250
MATH‐152
5
18
337
53
22
353
Transfer
1
25
98
32
1
1
194
26
65
972
133
10
52
958
Non‐
Placement African Hispanic/La Multiple/Ot Native Responden
Asian
tino
her
American
ts
White
Levels American
MATH‐254
61.5% 13.8%
35.0%
14.3%
60.0%
40.4%
16.8%
MATH‐154
15.4% 20.0%
20.3%
21.8%
30.0%
15.4%
26.1%
MATH‐152
19.2% 27.7%
34.7%
39.8%
0.0%
42.3%
36.8%
Transfer
3.8% 38.5%
100.0%
100.0%
10.1%
24.1%
10.0%
1.9%
20.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
MATH‐152 or higher
Majority = white
80% of majority =
Below 45.7%?
Disproportionat
e Impact?
EEOC Gap
Below
‐
African American
Asian
yes
‐34.0%
‐
‐
57.1%
45.7%
Below
‐
Hispanic/La Multiple/Ot
tino
her
yes
‐12.3%
* too few students to draw conclusions
‐
‐
Below
Below
‐
Native American
Non‐
Responden
ts
White
*
‐
yes
‐12.9%
‐
‐
572
504
788
352
2216
Disproportionate Impact by Age
Placement 26 ‐ 30
31 ‐ 40
Levels 17 & under 18 ‐ 20 21 ‐ 25
MATH‐254
2
302
117
53
MATH‐154
10
284
94
53
MATH‐152
25
622
99
22
Transfer
19
284
33
9
56
1492
343
137
41 ‐ 50
53
36
14
4
107
60+
51 ‐ 60
21
16
3
3
43
21
10
2
3
1
1
33
5
Placement 18 ‐ 20 21 ‐ 25
26 ‐ 30
31 ‐ 40
41 ‐ 50
51 ‐ 60
60+
Levels 17 & under
MATH‐254
3.6% 20.2%
34.1%
38.7%
49.5%
48.8%
63.6%
60.0%
MATH‐154
17.9% 19.0%
27.4%
38.7%
33.6%
37.2%
30.3%
20.0%
MATH‐152
44.6% 41.7%
28.9%
16.1%
13.1%
7.0%
6.1%
20.0%
Transfer
33.9% 19.0%
100.0%
100.0%
9.6%
6.6%
3.7%
7.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
MATH‐152 or higher
Majority = 18‐20
80% of majority =
Below 48.6%?
Age
Disproportionat
e Impact?
EEOC Gap
‐
17 & under
‐
‐
‐
18 ‐ 20
‐
‐
60.7%
48.6%
Below
21 ‐ 25
yes
‐22.2%
Below
26 ‐ 30
yes
‐38.1%
* too few students to draw conclusions
Below
31 ‐ 40
yes
‐43.9%
Below
41 ‐ 50
yes
‐46.8%
Below
51 ‐ 60
yes
‐54.7%
Below
60+
*
‐
572
504
788
352
2216
Disproportionate Impact by Gender
Placement Levels F
M
328
220
399
152
1099
MATH‐254
MATH‐154
MATH‐152
Transfer
Placement Levels F
MATH‐254
MATH‐154
MATH‐152
Transfer
242
284
385
197
1108
570
504
784
349
2207
M
29.8%
20.0%
36.3%
36.3%
21.8%
25.6%
34.7%
34.7%
122.5%
117.0%
MATH‐152 or higher
Majority = Female
80% of majority =
Below 58.1%?
Gender
Disproportionate Impact?
EEOC Gap
‐
‐
F
M
‐
‐
‐
‐
72.6%
58.1%
Disproportionate Impact by Disability
Placement Levels
MATH‐254
MATH‐154
MATH‐152
Transfer
Developme
Acquired ntally Delayed Hearing Brain Learner
Impaired
Injury
603
516
855
376
2350
Placement Levels Not Disabled
MATH‐254
25.7%
MATH‐154
22.0%
MATH‐152
36.4%
Transfer
2
1
1
EEOC Gap
Mobility Impaired
8
10
7
3
28
3
Acquired Development
Brain ally Delayed Hearing Injury
Learner
Impaired
Learning Disabled
Other Disability
4
3
3
22
7
17
9
55
10
Mobility Impaired
Psychological Disability
Other Disability
5
3
2
647
542
885
10
2463
Psychological Disability
16.0%
50.0%
25.0%
25.0%
0.0%
66.7%
0.0%
0.0%
33.3%
33.3%
66.7%
0.0%
0.0%
28.6%
35.7%
25.0%
10.7%
40.0%
30.0%
30.0%
0.0%
40.0%
12.7%
30.9%
16.4%
50.0%
30.0%
20.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
80% of majority =
Disability
Disproportiona
te Impact?
1
2
1
3
4
Majority = NO Disability
Below 41.9%?
2
Learning Disabled
‐
Not Disabled
‐
‐
Below
MATH‐152 or higher
52.4%
41.9%
Below
Acquired Development
Brain ally Delayed Injury
Learner
*
‐
*
‐
* too few students to draw conclusions
Below
Below
Below
‐
Below
Hearing Impaired
Learning Disabled
Mobility Impaired
Other Disability
Psychological Disability
*
‐
yes
‐16.7%
*
‐
‐
‐
*
‐
Appendix D
Disproportionate Impact by Ethnicity
Non‐
Placement African Hispanic/La Multiple/Ot Native Responden
Asian
tino
her
American
ts
White
Levels American
MATH‐254
16
9
340
19
6
21
161
MATH‐154
4
13
197
29
3
8
250
MATH‐152
5
18
337
53
22
353
Transfer
1
25
98
32
1
1
194
26
65
972
133
10
52
958
Non‐
Placement African Responden
Hispanic/La Multiple/Ot Native ts
White
Asian
tino
her
American
Levels American
MATH‐254
61.5% 13.8%
35.0%
14.3%
60.0%
40.4%
16.8%
MATH‐154
15.4% 20.0%
20.3%
21.8%
30.0%
15.4%
26.1%
MATH‐152
19.2% 27.7%
34.7%
39.8%
0.0%
42.3%
36.8%
Transfer
3.8% 38.5%
10.1%
24.1%
10.0%
1.9%
20.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Transfer
Majority = white
80% of majority =
Below 16.2%?
Disproportionate Impact?
EEOC Gap
Below
‐
African American
Asian
yes
‐12.4%
‐
‐
20.3%
16.2%
Below
‐
Hispanic/La Multiple/Ot
tino
her
yes
‐6.1%
* too few students to draw conclusions
‐
‐
Below
Below
‐
Native American
Non‐
Responden
ts
White
*
‐
yes
‐14.3%
‐
‐
572
504
788
352
2216
Disproportionate Impact by Age
Placement 26 ‐ 30
31 ‐ 40
Levels 17 & under 18 ‐ 20 21 ‐ 25
MATH‐254
2
302
117
53
MATH‐154
10
284
94
53
MATH‐152
25
622
99
22
Transfer
19
284
33
9
56
1492
343
137
41 ‐ 50
53
36
14
4
107
60+
51 ‐ 60
21
16
3
3
43
21
10
2
3
1
1
33
5
Placement 18 ‐ 20 21 ‐ 25
26 ‐ 30
31 ‐ 40
41 ‐ 50
51 ‐ 60
60+
Levels 17 & under
MATH‐254
3.6% 20.2%
34.1%
38.7%
49.5%
48.8%
63.6%
60.0%
MATH‐154
17.9% 19.0%
27.4%
38.7%
33.6%
37.2%
30.3%
20.0%
MATH‐152
44.6% 41.7%
28.9%
16.1%
13.1%
7.0%
6.1%
20.0%
Transfer
33.9% 19.0%
9.6%
6.6%
3.7%
7.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Transfer
Majority = 18‐20
80% of majority =
Below 15.2%?
Age
Disproportionate Impact?
EEOC Gap
‐
17 & under
‐
‐
‐
18 ‐ 20
‐
‐
19.0%
15.2%
Below
21 ‐ 25
Below
26 ‐ 30
yes
‐9.4%
* too few students to draw conclusions
yes
‐12.5%
Below
31 ‐ 40
yes
‐15.3%
Below
41 ‐ 50
yes
‐12.1%
Below
51 ‐ 60
yes
‐19.0%
Below
60+
*
‐
572
504
788
352
2216
Disproportionate Impact by Gender
Placement Levels F
M
328
220
399
152
1099
MATH‐254
MATH‐154
MATH‐152
Transfer
Placement Levels F
MATH‐254
MATH‐154
MATH‐152
Transfer
242
284
385
197
1108
570
504
784
349
2207
M
29.8%
20.0%
36.3%
36.3%
21.8%
25.6%
34.7%
34.7%
122.5%
117.0%
Transfer
Majority = Female
80% of majority =
Below 29.0%?
‐
‐
Gender
F
M
Disproportionate Impact?
EEOC Gap
‐
‐
‐
‐
36.3%
29.0%
Disproportionate Impact by Disability
Developme
Acquired ntally Brain Delayed Hearing Injury
Learner
Impaired
Placement Levels
MATH‐254
MATH‐154
MATH‐152
Transfer
603
516
855
376
2350
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
4
Learning Disabled
Mobility Impaired
8
10
7
3
28
3
Other Disability
4
3
3
Psychological Disability
22
7
17
9
55
10
5
3
2
647
542
885
10
2463
Acquired Developmen
Placement tally Delayed Hearing Learning Mobility Other Psychological Brain Learner
Impaired
Disabled
Impaired
Disability
Disability
Levels Not Disabled Injury
MATH‐254
25.7% 50.0%
66.7%
33.3%
28.6%
40.0%
40.0%
50.0%
MATH‐154
22.0% 25.0%
0.0%
66.7%
35.7%
30.0%
12.7%
30.0%
MATH‐152
36.4% 25.0%
0.0%
0.0%
25.0%
30.0%
30.9%
20.0%
Transfer
16.0%
0.0%
33.3%
0.0%
10.7%
0.0%
16.4%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Majority = NO Disability
80% of majority =
Below 12.8%?
‐
Disability
Not Disabled
Disproportionate Impact?
EEOC Gap
‐
‐
Below
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
16.0%
12.8%
‐
Acquired Developmen
Brain tally Delayed Learner
Injury
*
‐
100.0%
‐
‐
* too few students to draw conclusions
Below
Below
Below
‐
Below
Hearing Impaired
Learning Disabled
Mobility Impaired
Other Disability
Psychological Disability
*
‐
yes
‐2.1%
*
‐
‐
‐
*
‐