Student Placement in Mathematics Courses by Demographic Group Background

Transcription

1 Student Placement in Mathematics Courses by Demographic Group Background To fulfill the CCCCO Matriculation Standard of determining the proportion of students by ethnic, gender, age, and disability groups placed in pre-collegiate, degree-applicable, and transfer-level courses, assessment scores in mathematics, English/writing, and ESL for individuals who took an assessment test 1 for the academic year were reviewed. The current report describes the proportion of students placed 2 into the different course levels for the mathematic assessment exams (MDTPs) by demographic group. Placement by Ethnicity Table 1 shows the proportion of students assessed into the three types of courses by ethnicity 3. The table 4 shows the percentage of students from each ethnic group placed into a basic skills course out of all students placed into a basic skills course. A critical comparison is between the proportion of students from each ethnic group who took an assessment exam with the proportion of students from each ethnic group who were placed into each type of course. For example, 42% of students who were placed into a basic skills level math course were Hispanic, while only 36% of the students who took the math placement exam were Hispanic; this is a statistically significantly higher rate of placement into basic skills math courses for Hispanic students compared to the number of Hispanic students in the sample. There was a significantly lower rate of placement into basic skills math courses of Asian students compared to their proportions in the sample. There were disproportionately more Asian students, and disproportionately fewer Hispanic students, placed into degree-applicable and transferable math courses. White students were also disproportionately less likely to be placed into transfer-level math courses. Table 1 Hispanic 42.2% 23.7% 18.8% 35.7% 984 Asian/Pacific Islander 22.0% 46.8% 56.0% 30.8% 849 White 28.1% 24.6% 21.1% 26.8% 741 Black 7.0% 3.8% 2.7% 5.8% 161 American Indian 0.8% 1.1% 1.4% 0.9% 25 Another way to review this placement rate is by comparing the placement rate of minority students to the placement rate of majority students. Guidelines related to this comparison, 1 For students who took more than one mathematics assessment test, only their most recent test score was included. 2 Course level was determined by the Assessment Center s course placement cut-score recommendation and the catalog description. For example, if a student earned a 25 on the MDPT-1 the recommendation is placement in Math-20. Based on the catalog, Math-20 is not basic skills, is degree-applicable course, and is not transferable. Note that using this recommendation does not include the multiple measure of counselor or faculty suggestions and therefore does not truly test placement recommendations. 3 Ethnicity was not known for 25% of the sample. Missing data are from students who did not take courses at Cypress College after taking their assessment test or who declined to report demographic characteristics. 4 In all tables, the percentages are out of the course type, not out of the demographic group; each column would sum to 100% if there were no missing data or students with other statuses. The tables do not show, for example, the percentage of Hispanics who were placed into a basic skills course out of all Hispanic students who took an assessment test; see the Appendix for this information. Institutional Research & Planning Spring 2011

2 supported by the CCCCO, suggest an 80% ratio rule of minority to majority rates as a statistically simple way to determine disproportionate impact. This rule is discussed in the Appendix. A more statistically sophisticated way to compare each ethnic group and a target ethnic group was also calculated. This analysis found that Black and Hispanic students were statistically more likely to be assessed into a basic skill math course than were White students while Asian students were less likely to be placed into basic skills mathematics courses. For degree-applicable math courses, Asian students were statistically more likely, and Black and Hispanic students were less likely, to be placed into degree-applicable math courses than were White students. Asian and American Indian students were more likely to be placed into transfer level math courses compared to White students while Black and Hispanic ethnicities were less likely to be placed into transferable math courses compared to White students. Placement by Gender Table 2 shows the proportion of students assessed into the course types by gender 5. Both men and women were proportionately placed into basic skills mathematics courses, while neither were proportionately placed into degree-applicable or transferable math courses; women were disproportionately more likely to be placed into basic skills or transferable courses but less likely to be placed into degree-applicable math courses, and men were less likely to be placed into basic skills math courses but more likely to be placed into degree-applicable courses. Confirming these within-gender comparisons, female students were more likely to be assessed into a basic skills course and less likely to be placed into degree-applicable or transferable courses than male students. Table 2 Female 52.5% 45.3% 45.7% 50.5% 1,495 Male 47.5% 54.7% 54.3% 49.5% 1,463 Placement by Age Category Table 3 shows the proportion of students assessed into the three types of courses by age. Students younger than 19 years old were disproportionately less likely to be placed into basic skills math courses, and more likely to be placed into degree-applicable or transferable math courses, compared to their proportion in the sample. Students in their early 20 s were disproportionately less likely to be placed into degree-applicable and transferable courses. All other age categories were proportionately placed into the three types of courses compared to their proportion in the sample. Comparing between age groups, younger students were again found to be less likely to be assessed into a basic skills math course, and more likely to be placed into degree-applicable and transferable mathematics courses than older students. 5 Gender was not known for 20% of the sample. These cases were excluded from gender analyses. Page 2

3 Table 3 <19 years old 66.1% 81.8% 84.3% 71.6% 2, % 12.4% 12.0% 17.5% % 3.1% 2.2% 5.1% % 0.8% 0.5% 1.7% % 0.1% 0.5% 1.5% % 1.3% 0.8% 1.9% and older 0.6% 0.5% 0.3% 0.6% 17 Placement by Disability Status Table 4 shows the proportion of students assessed into the course types by disability diagnosis 6. Compared to their proportion in the sample of assessed students, a higher proportion of nondisabled students were placed into degree-applicable or transferable math courses compared to the proportion of non-disabled students assessed. No disproportionate placement of disabled students in the three types of courses was found, nor was disproportionate placement found for placement into basic skills courses for either disabled or non-disabled students. Compared to non-disabled students, students with disability diagnoses were statistically more likely to be assessed into a basic skills course, and less likely to be placed into degree-applicable or transferable courses. Table 4 No disability diagnosis 98.1% 99.3% 99.6% 98.5% 3,642 Disability diagnosis 1.9% 0.7% 0.4% 1.5% 55 Summary Hispanic students, women, older students, and disabled students were disproportionately placed into basic skills mathematic courses. Asian, younger, or non-disabled students were disproportionately placed into degreeapplicable and transferable math courses. 6 Students who did not have a disability diagnosis were categorized as not disabled. Page 3

4 Appendix The 2001 Poggio and Glasnapp guidelines 7, supported by the CCCCO, suggested that an 80% ratio rule be used to assess disproportionate impact. This means that, for each social category, placement rate of a minority group (number placed into a type of class out of the number assessed) should be at least 80% of the proportion of the majority group s placement rate. This 80% ratio only seems applicable to college-level courses because it highlights disproportionately low placement rates and this is only of consequence in courses which disadvantaged students would be expected to be less likely to attain (e.g., college-level). In the table below, a 120% ratio rule was used for basic skills courses to ensure that a disproportionately high number of minority students were not being placed in these low level courses. The table shows the placement rate of each social group out of the total number of students from that social group who completed a mathematics assessment exam; the ratio of the minority placement rate to the majority placement rate is also calculated. For ethnicity, gender, and disability, the majority is defined by social status in the larger society. For age, the numeric majority is used (students younger than 19 years old). Compared to the ratio for all assessment exams, there were many groups of students based on demographic features that have placement ratios for mathematic courses that are critically disproportionate. Age and disability status are problematic for all levels of math courses, while Black and Hispanic students are unlikely to be placed into degree-applicable or transfer-level math courses. Placement Rate by Social Category Ratio (Minority/Majority) Disproportionate Impact? (120%) White (comparison) 68% American Indian 56% 83% No Asian/PI/Filipino 46% 68% No Black 77% 114% No Hispanic 77% 113% No Men (comparison) 62% Women 67% 108% No <19 years old (comparison) 60% % 125% Yes % 132% Yes % 141% Yes % 163% Yes % 127% Yes % 118% No Not disabled (comparison) 66% Disability diagnosis 84% 126% Yes Degree-Applicable White (comparison) 32% American Indian 44% 136% No 7 Page 4

5 Placement Rate by Social Ratio Disproportionate Category (Minority/Majority) Impact? Asian/PI/Filipino 54% 166% No Black 23% 71% Yes Hispanic 23% 72% Yes Men (comparison) 38% Women 31% 83% No <19 years old (comparison) 40% % 62% Yes % 53% Yes % 39% Yes % 5% Yes % 60% Yes % 73% Yes Not disabled (comparison) 34% Disability diagnosis 16% 48% Yes Transferable White (comparison) 20% American Indian 57% 282% No Asian/PI/Filipino 49% 243% No Black 11% 54% Yes Hispanic 14% 70% Yes Men (comparison) 28% Women 22% 80% No <19 years old (comparison) 31% % 49% Yes % 30% Yes % 13% Yes % 7% Yes % 30% Yes % 49% Yes Not disabled (comparison) 25% Disability diagnosis 53% 19% Yes Page 5