Message: TAC Materials

TAC Materials
TAC Materials

From | Sireno, Lisa | Date Monday, July 3, 2017 10:25 AM

To | Neale, Chris;Preis, Stacey;Strand, Jocelyn;Henningsen, Blaine
Cc |
Subject | TAC Materials

asmt-tac-eoc-alg1-pe-issue-report-062917.pdf (348 Kb ) asmt-tac-eoc-network-slowdown-report-063017.pdf (85 Kb )

Hello,

See attached for the materials Questar has submitted for our TAC’s review prior to Wednesday’s discussion.

Lisa

Lisa Sireno | Standards and Assessment Administrator | Office of College and Career Readiness

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education | 573-751-3545 | dese.mo.gov

    Deriving Scale Scores for Students with Unscorable  Algebra I Performance Event (PE) Responses
    Presented to DESE | June 29, 2017
    1. Introduction  This document describes how scale scores were derived for students whose Session 2  Algebra I performance event (PE) responses were rendered unscorable due to  technological issues and includes additional analyses performed at the request of the  Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) and Technical  Advisory Committee (TAC). There were 176 students affected by the technology issue.  The DESE requested that Questar move forward to produce student reports to prevent  reporting delays.
    Questar statistically linked student performance on Session 1 of the Algebra I test to  student performance on the full Algebra I test. Session 1 consisted of 40 machine-scored items (40 points), and Session 2 consisted of one hand-scored PE (10 points)  for a maximum score of 50 points. The statistical linking process placed the scores  earned on Session 1 onto the scale used to report scores on the full test. Thus, the  linked Session 1 scale scores are comparable to scale scores from the total test. Due to  score reliability and content differences, the linked scale scores will not be considered  completely exchangeable with the full test scale scores. In other words, it will not be a  matter of indifference to individual students whether their scale scores are based on  Session 1 only or on the full test.
    Additional analyses were conducted at the request of DESE and TAC during the June 2,  2017 conference call. The additional results include raw score summary statistics for the  general population (i.e., students not affected by the PE issue) and the students  affected by the PE issue, correlations of the scores from the two test sections, and  actual and projected PE score results for the non-affected students.
    2. Test Design  Table 2.1 provides the content representation of Session 1, Session 2, and the full test.  The Session 2 points are distributed across the Algebra and Functions reporting  categories.
    Page 1 of 11

    Deriving Scale Scores for Unscorable Algebra I PE Responses
    Table 2.1. Content Representation of the Algebra Test
    Reporting Category
    Session 1 Session 2 Full Test
    #Points % #Points % #Points %
    Algebra
    Functions
    Numbers & Operations
    Statistics/Probability
    17
    15
    3
    5
    42.5
    37.5
    7.5
    12.5
    6
    4
    ----
    60.0
    40.0
    ----
    23
    19
    3
    5
    46.0
    38.0
    6.0
    10.0
    Total 40 100.0 10 100.0 50 100.0
    3. Linking Procedure  Two facts are important for understanding the linking plan:
    1.	 The Session 1 items cover all reporting categories and represent 80 percent of  the Algebra 1 test.  2.	 The Session 1 items are part of the Algebra 1 calibrated item pool.
    Because of these facts, a Session 1 raw-to-scale score (RSS) conversion table can be  derived through a well-known process known as fixed-common-item parameter (FCIP)  linking using the following steps.
    Step 1.	 Obtain student ability estimates (i.e., the raw-to-logit score table) for Session  1 by anchoring all Session 1 items to their banked values. The result is a  raw-to-logit score table generated by Winsteps. Each student’s Rasch logit-ability score can be obtained from this table based on his or her number-correct score.
    Step 2.	 Perform inverse mapping of theta values from Session 1 to the Algebra 1  RSS table to obtain a projected total test score for students without scorable  PE responses. Based on this concordance table, students without PE scores  will be assigned total raw scores, scale scores, and conditional standard  errors of measurement (CSEMs) based on the RSS table for the full test.
    Step 3.	 Calculate Session 2 raw scores by subtracting the projected total test raw  scores from the Session 1 raw scores.
    4. Results  The results were independently replicated by two Questar psychometricians. Table 4.1  presents the Algebra I RSS table. Table 4.2 shows the alignment of the raw-to-theta  values for Session 1 and the full test, as well as the difference of raw score, theta, and  standard error (SE) values.
    Page 2 of 11

    Deriving Scale Scores for Unscorable Algebra I PE Responses
    Table 4.1. Algebra I RSS Conversion Table
    Raw Score Theta SE Scale Score CSEM Performance Level Theta Cut
    0 -5.1536 1.8519 100 40 Below Basic
    1 -3.8844 1.0442 107 22 Below Basic
    2 -3.1048 0.7633 124 16 Below Basic
    3 -2.6201 0.6399 134 14 Below Basic
    4 -2.2591 0.5663 142 12 Below Basic
    5 -1.9676 0.5160 148 11 Below Basic
    6 -1.7208 0.4790 153 10 Below Basic
    7 -1.5054 0.4503 158 10 Below Basic
    8 -1.3132 0.4272 162 9 Below Basic
    9 -1.1388 0.4084 166 9 Below Basic
    10 -0.9786 0.3926 169 8 Below Basic
    11 -0.8298 0.3792 172 8 Below Basic
    12 -0.6904 0.3677 175 8 Below Basic
    13 -0.5589 0.3578 178 8 Below Basic
    14 -0.4340 0.3492 181 7 Below Basic
    15 -0.3147 0.3418 183 7 Below Basic
    16 -0.2002 0.3352 186 7 Below Basic
    17 -0.0897 0.3295 188 7 Basic -0.1359
    18 0.0171 0.3244 190 7 Basic
    19 0.1209 0.3201 193 7 Basic
    20 0.2221 0.3162 195 7 Basic
    21 0.3211 0.3129 197 7 Basic
    22 0.4181 0.3101 200 7 Proficient 0.4615
    23 0.5134 0.3076 201 7 Proficient
    24 0.6074 0.3056 203 7 Proficient
    25 0.7002 0.3039 205 7 Proficient
    26 0.7921 0.3025 207 6 Proficient
    27 0.8833 0.3015 209 6 Proficient
    28 0.9740 0.3009 211 6 Proficient
    29 1.0644 0.3006 213 6 Proficient
    30 1.1548 0.3008 215 6 Proficient
    31 1.2455 0.3014 217 6 Proficient
    32 1.3367 0.3027 219 6 Proficient
    33 1.4289 0.3046 221 7 Proficient
    34 1.5224 0.3073 223 7 Proficient
    35 1.6180 0.3110 225 7 Advanced 1.6282
    36 1.7162 0.3159 227 7 Advanced
    37 1.8178 0.3221 229 7 Advanced
    38 1.9240 0.3299 231 7 Advanced
    Page 3 of 11

    Deriving Scale Scores for Unscorable Algebra I PE Responses
    Raw Score Theta SE Scale Score CSEM Performance Level Theta Cut
    39 2.0360 0.3398 234 7 Advanced
    40 2.1555 0.3520 236 8 Advanced
    41 2.2847 0.3673 239 8 Advanced
    42 2.4264 0.3862 242 8 Advanced
    43 2.5846 0.4100 245 9 Advanced
    44 2.7649 0.4403 249 9 Advanced
    45 2.9757 0.4796 250 10 Advanced
    46 3.2306 0.5327 250 11 Advanced
    47 3.5544 0.6098 250 13 Advanced
    48 4.0013 0.7378 250 16 Advanced
    49 4.7419 1.0251 250 22 Advanced
    50 5.9831 1.8409 250 39 Advanced
    Note. Cut scores are highlighted in yellow.
    Table 4.2. Alignment of Session 1 and Algebra I Raw Score to Theta Scores
    Session 1 Algebra I Full Test Difference*
    Raw Score Theta SE Raw Score Theta SE Raw Score Theta SE
    0 -5.1280
    1 -3.8552
    2 -3.0704
    3 -2.5803
    4 -2.2138
    5 -1.9164
    6 -1.6636
    7 -1.4417
    8 -1.2427
    9 -1.0610
    10 -0.8929
    11 -0.7357
    12 -0.5872
    13 -0.4458
    14 -0.3101
    15 -0.1792
    16 -0.0521
    17 0.0720
    18 0.1938
    19 0.3139
    20 0.4330
    1.8533
    1.0467
    0.7668
    0.6441
    0.5713
    0.5217
    0.4854
    0.4576
    0.4355
    0.4176
    0.4028
    0.3906
    0.3804
    0.3719
    0.3648
    0.3590
    0.3542
    0.3505
    0.3477
    0.3457
    0.3446
    0 -5.1536 1.8519
    1 -3.8844 1.0442
    2 -3.1048 0.7633
    3 -2.6201 0.6399
    4 -2.2591 0.5663
    5 -1.9676 0.5160
    6 -1.7208 0.4790
    7 -1.5054 0.4503
    8 -1.3132 0.4272
    9 -1.1388 0.4084
    11 -0.8298 0.3792
    12 -0.6904 0.3677
    13 -0.5589 0.3578
    14 -0.4340 0.3492
    15 -0.3147 0.3418
    16 -0.2002 0.3352
    17 -0.0897 0.3295
    19 0.1209 0.3201
    20 0.2221 0.3162
    21 0.3211 0.3129
    22 0.4181 0.3101
    0 0.0256
    0 0.0292
    0 0.0344
    0 0.0398
    0 0.0453
    0 0.0512
    0 0.0572
    0 0.0637
    0 0.0705
    0 0.0778
    -1 -0.0631
    -1 -0.0453
    -1 -0.0283
    -1 -0.0118
    -1 0.0046
    -1 0.0210
    -1 0.0376
    -2 -0.0489
    -2 -0.0283
    -2 -0.0072
    -2 0.0149
    0.0014
    0.0025
    0.0035
    0.0042
    0.0050
    0.0057
    0.0064
    0.0073
    0.0082
    0.0091
    0.0236
    0.0229
    0.0226
    0.0227
    0.0230
    0.0238
    0.0247
    0.0304
    0.0315
    0.0328
    0.0345
    Page 4 of 11

    Deriving Scale Scores for Unscorable Algebra I PE Responses
    Session 1 Algebra I Full Test Difference*
    Raw Score Theta SE Raw Score Theta SE Raw Score Theta SE
    21 0.5516 0.3443 23 0.5134 0.3076 -2 0.0382 0.0367
    22 0.6703 0.3449 25 0.7002 0.3039 -3 -0.0299 0.0410
    23 0.7897 0.3463 26 0.7921 0.3025 -3 -0.0024 0.0438
    24 0.9104 0.3487 27 0.8833 0.3015 -3 0.0271 0.0472
    25 1.0331 0.3520 29 1.0644 0.3006 -4 -0.0314 0.0514
    26 1.1584 0.3564 30 1.1548 0.3008 -4 0.0036 0.0556
    27 1.2874 0.3620 31 1.2455 0.3014 -4 0.0419 0.0606
    28 1.4209 0.3691 33 1.4289 0.3046 -5 -0.0080 0.0645
    29 1.5602 0.3777 34 1.5224 0.3073 -5 0.0378 0.0704
    30 1.7068 0.3884 36 1.7162 0.3159 -6 -0.0094 0.0725
    31 1.8627 0.4015 37 1.8178 0.3221 -6 0.0449 0.0794
    32 2.0303 0.4178 39 2.0360 0.3398 -7 -0.0057 0.0780
    33 2.2132 0.4383 40 2.1555 0.3520 -7 0.0577 0.0863
    34 2.4166 0.4646 42 2.4264 0.3862 -8 -0.0098 0.0784
    35 2.6482 0.4995 43 2.5846 0.4100 -8 0.0636 0.0895
    36 2.9211 0.5478 45 2.9757 0.4796 -9 -0.0546 0.0682
    37 3.2594 0.6201 46 3.2306 0.5327 -9 0.0288 0.0874
    38 3.7167 0.7435 47 3.5544 0.6098 -9 0.1623 0.1337
    39 4.4637 1.0272 49 4.7419 1.0251 -10 -0.2782 0.0021
    40 5.7070 1.8413 50 5.9831 1.8409 -10 -0.2761 0.0004
    *Difference is calculated by Session 1 minus Algebra I full test values.  Note. Cut scores are highlighted in yellow.
    Table 4.3 shows the number and percent of students at each achievement level for the  general population and the students with malformed PE responses. The group of  students affected by the malformed PE responses was lower-performing than the  students not affected by the PE readability issue, as indicated by the percent of  students achieving the Proficient and Advanced level (17.05 versus 60.40, respectively).
    Page 5 of 11

    Deriving Scale Scores for Unscorable Algebra I PE Responses
    Table 4.3. Achievement Level Distribution—Spring 2017, Algebra I
    Content  Area Achievement Level
    General  Population*
    Malformed PE  Students Percent
    Difference* Freq. % Freq. %
    Algebra I
    Below Basic
    Basic
    Proficient
    Advanced
    Below Basic + Basic
    Proficient + Advanced
    12,392 20.46
    11,601 19.15
    25,069 41.38
    11,519 19.01
    23,993 39.60
    36,588 60.40
    102 57.95
    44 25.00
    28 15.91
    2 1.14
    146 82.95
    30 17.05
    -37.49
    -5.85
    25.47
    17.87
    -43.35
    43.35
    Total 60,581 100 176 100 --
    *General population includes students not affected by the malformed PE responses.  **Difference is calculated by the population minus students with the malformed PE responses.
    Table 4.4 shows descriptive statistics for the general population and the PE-affected  students for Session 1, Session 2, and total raw score. Results indicate that  performance on Session 1 and the total test for the PE-affected students is about one  standard deviation lower than the general population. The mean of 3 out of 10 for the  general population shows that the PE task is difficult for the students.
    Table 4.4. Raw Score Descriptive Statistics by Group
    Session Group N Minimum Maximum Mean
    Std.
    Deviation
    1
    General Population
    PE-Affected Students
    60,564
    176
    0
    5
    40
    33
    22.20
    14.92
    7.57
    5.40
    2
    General Population
    PE-Affected Students*
    60,460
    176
    0
    0
    10
    7
    3.04
    1.43
    2.61
    1.17
    Total  Score
    General Population
    PE-Affected Students*
    60,581
    176
    0
    5
    50
    40
    25.23
    16.35
    9.44
    6.50
    Note: General population does not include the PE-affected students.  * The linking procedure was used for these results.
    The correlation coefficients between the test sessions and total test score are shown in  Tables 4.5 and 4.6 for the general population and the PE-affected students,  respectively. The correlations between Session 1 and the total test are high for both  group of students (i.e., greater than 0.97). The correlations between Session 2 and the  total test scores are higher for the PE-affected students (r=0.953) than the general  population (r=0.780).
    Page 6 of 11

    Deriving Scale Scores for Unscorable Algebra I PE Responses
    Table 4.5. Correlation Coefficients of Test Sessions for the General Population
    #Points Session 1 Session 2 Total Test
    Session 1 40 1.000 0.627 0.976
    Session 2 10 0.627 1.000 0.780
    Total Test 50 0.976 0.780 1.000
    Table 4.6. Correlation Coefficients of Test Sessions for the PE-Affected Students
    #Points Session 1 Session 2 Total Test
    Session 1 40 1.000 0.931 0.998
    Session 2 10 0.931 1.000 0.953
    Total Test 50 0.998 0.953 1.000
    The method of calculating Session 2 scores based on Session 1 scores was applied to  the general population. The correlation between the actual Session 2 scores and the  projected Session 2 scores is 0.634. The difference distribution between the PE score  and the projected PE score is shown in Table 4.7.
    The PE difference scores range from 9 to -10. At the extremes of the distribution range,  two students obtained scores of 9 on the PE and scores of 0 for the projected score  based on the 40 point Session 1 results (PE difference score of 9) and one student  obtained a score of 0 on the PE but the projected score was 10 based on his/her  Session 1 result (PE difference score of -10). About 78 percent of the difference scores  fell between 2 and -2 and 89 percent of difference scores fell between 3 and -3. The  results presented graphically in Figure 1 approximate a normal distribution.
    Finally, Figure 2 provides a scatter plot of the predicted Session 2 score on the actual  Session 2 score for the general population. The bulk of the observations are in the  lower left hand corner (low scores on both the x and y-axis). As suggested in Table 4.7,  very few students had x, y pairs that differed more than 4 points.
    Page 7 of 11

    Deriving Scale Scores for Unscorable Algebra I PE Responses
    Table 4.7. Frequency Distribution of PE Score Difference
    PE Score  Difference*
    Frequency Percent
    Cumulative  Frequency
    Cumulative  Percent
    9 2 0.00 2 0.00
    8 28 0.05 30 0.05
    7 110 0.18 140 0.23
    6 330 0.55 470 0.78
    5 786 1.30 1,256 2.08
    4 1,499 2.48 2,755 4.56
    3 2,908 4.81 5,663 9.37
    2 5,077 8.40 10,740 17.77
    1 8,612 14.25 19,352 32.02
    0 12,612 20.87 31,964 52.88
    -1 13,089 21.66 45,053 74.54
    -2 7,701 12.74 52,754 87.28
    -3 3,857 6.38 56,611 93.66
    -4 2,149 3.56 58,760 97.22
    -5 1,017 1.68 59,777 98.90
    -6 444 0.73 60,221 99.63
    -7 162 0.27 60,383 99.90
    -8 50 0.08 60,433 99.98
    -9 9 0.01 60,442 100.00
    -10 1 0.00 60,443 100.00
    * Score difference is calculated by actual minus projected score.
    Page 8 of 11

    Deriving Scale Scores for Unscorable Algebra I PE Responses
    Figure 1. PE score difference for the actual minus projected PE results
    Score Difference
     14,000
     12,000
     10,000
     8,000
     6,000
     4,000
     2,000
     -
    9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10
    Page 9 of 11

    Deriving Scale Scores for Unscorable Algebra I PE Responses
    Figure 2. Projected Session 2 Scores on Actual Session 2 Scores
    P
    r
    o
    j
    e
    c
    t
    e
    d
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    Actual
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    Missouri Actual vs Projected Session 2 Scores
    Size of Bubbles are Relative to N Count
    934
    4549
    2694
    939
    555
    181
    100
    47
    28
    7
    1
    489
    4309
    3521
    1453
    996
    382
    251
    112
    45
    20
    2
    284
    2935
    2959
    1547
    1176
    557
    405
    245
    119
    55
    2
    104
    1241
    1710
    1158
    1012
    605
    385
    276
    146
    96
    15
    20
    499
    1060
    872
    946
    629
    507
    356
    273
    169
    17
    4
    246
    653
    731
    871
    604
    548
    457
    308
    218
    25
    4
    97
    347
    439
    586
    412
    434
    385
    306
    235
    40
    84
    313
    411
    661
    515
    564
    554
    526
    450
    81
    15
    85
    110
    177
    181
    230
    268
    246
    272
    53
    1
    18
    80
    124
    219
    222
    273
    310
    342
    402
    100
    1
    10
    15
    33
    43
    76
    98
    120
    149
    66
    Note. Pearson’s r = 0.634. Size of bubbles are relative to the n-count.
    Page 10 of 11

    Deriving Scale Scores for Unscorable Algebra I PE Responses
    5. Conclusion
    This document outlined the procedure for deriving scale scores for students whose  Session 2 Algebra I PE responses were rendered unscorable due to technological  issues. The results of the analyses suggest that the approach is sound, based on the  high correlations between the Session 1 and Session 2 scores and the normally  distributed residuals of the projected scores and the actual scores for students that were  not affected by the malformed PE responses.
    Page 11 of 11

    MO EOC Spring 2017 Online Testing Network Slowdown
    MO EOC Spring 2017 Online Testing Network Slowdown
    Presented to DESE | June 29, 2017
    1. Introduction  This document presents descriptive analyses conducted to investigate the network  slowdown during the Spring testing window for the Missouri End-of-Course (MO EOC)  assessments. The network slowdown occurred between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on  Tuesday, April 25, 2017 and was caused by a high volume of test takers. The slowdown  affected 19,567 students across 338 (of 822) schools in 265 (of 526) districts. No item  responses were lost, but two groups of students were impacted:
     Group 1: Students who were actively testing when they experienced the  slowdown (n = 5,664)   Group 2: Students who attempted to log in but were unsuccessful and could not  begin testing (n = 13,903)
    The results provided here were requested by DESE and the TAC during the June 2,  2017 conference call. The analyses were conducted to further explore the impacted  students. Specifically, the following analyses are presented:
     Demographic representation of the students in Groups 1 and 2, non-slowdown  and general population   Achievement level trends for Spring 2015, 2016, and 2017, including Groups 1  and 2 and the non-slowdown students for Spring 2017   Prior year achievement level results for Groups 1 and 2   State and school results by Group for Spring 2017   State and district results for Spring 2015, 2016, and 2017
    2. MO EOC Assessment Overview  For accountability purposes, districts are required to administer the MO EOC English II,  Algebra I, Biology, and Government Assessments to all students prior to graduation. For  students who completed the Algebra I assessment before high school, Algebra II is the  required high school Mathematics assessment.
    The MO EOC Assessments are currently intact pre-equated forms. Two or more forms  are rotated across administrations for all content areas except English I, Geometry, and  Physical Science that only have one form. Table 2.1 presents the forms used for the  Spring 2015, 2016, and 2017 administrations to facilitate interpretation of the data.
    Page 1 of 4

    MO EOC Spring 2017 Online Testing Network Slowdown
    Table 2.1. MO EOC Spring Forms
    Content Area 2015 2016 2017
    English II 2014H 2014G 2014H  Algebra I H G H
    Biology A C A
    English I 7 7 7
    Algebra II 8 7 8
    Geometry 7 7 7
    Government 5 1 5
    American History 3 1 3
    Physical Science 1 1 1
    Where historical data are presented, the results for Spring 2015, 2016, and 2017 are  provided. The results for Spring 2014 are not presented because test forms changed for  the math and English tests (i.e., Algebra I, Algebra II, Geometry, English I, English II)  beginning in the Fall 2014 and Physical Science was introduced in Fall 2014.
    3. Results  3.1 Demographic Representation  Table 3.1 (see the attached Excel document) shows the number and percent of  students for gender and ethnicity categories for Group1, Group 2, non-slowdown  students, and the population. The other demographic information (migrant status, free  and reduced lunch, limited English proficient, Title I, individualized education program,  accommodations) are not available until the fall when the demographic file is delivered  to Questar.
    The last two columns show the percent difference of Groups 1 and 2 compared to the  non-slowdown students. Differences that exceeded 10 percentage points were  highlighted. The threshold value of 10 was selected because the small n-count groups  may have results that vary considerably due to random factors. Positive values were  highlighted in yellow and negative differences were highlighted in green. No gender  differences were flagged. Ethnicity differences were flagged for Groups 1 and 2. Group  1 differences showed a higher percent of black and Hispanic students for Algebra II, a  higher percent of multi-racial students for American History, and a lower percent of  white students for both content areas. The Group 2 comparison showed a lower percent  of black students for Algebra I and a higher percent of white students for Algebra I and  American History. The flagged differences occurred for small sample sizes, especially  for Group 1 (i.e., 92 students for Algebra I, 9 students for American History).
    3.2 Achievement Level Trends  Table 3.2 (see the attached Excel document) shows the achievement level data for the  Spring 2015, Spring 2016, and Spring 2017 results. As indicated in Table 2.1, common  forms were used for the Spring 2015 and 2017 administrations for all content areas, and

    MO EOC Spring 2017 Online Testing Network Slowdown
    common forms across all three Spring administrations were used for English I,  Geometry, and Physical Science.
    A consistent pattern of performance across content areas was not observed for the  students who experienced network slowdown. Considering the percent differences at  the Proficient + Advanced level, Group 1 had a higher percent of students for five  content areas and Group 2 had a higher percent of students for three content areas  compared to the non-slowdown students.
    Consistent with the demographic data, a 10 percentage point difference threshold for  flagging was applied. Looking at the percent of students in the Proficient and Advanced  performance level (Proficient + Advanced), there was a lower percent of Group 1  students compared to the non-slowdown students for American History (n = 9) and  Geometry (n = 164). None of the Group 2 percent differences from the non-slowdown  students were flagged using the 10 percent difference threshold for the Proficient +  Advanced performance level.
    3.3 Prior Achievement for Slowdown Groups  The prior year’s performance level results of the slowdown students, Groups 1 and 2,  are presented beside the Spring 2017 results in Table 3.3. Student records were  searched for the Summer and Fall 2015 and Spring 2016 administrations within the  same subject matter: for the math subjects (Algebra I, Algebra II, Geometry), English  subjects (English I, English II), science (Biology, Physical Science), and social science  (American History, Government). For instance, the prior year’s results for Geometry  Group 2 consist of 161 Algebra I and 18 Algebra II (for a total n = 179).
    Very few records from last year were found for some content areas (e.g., Algebra I,  English I), likely because the pre-requisite course is at the Grade 8 level. Over 60  percent of the cases had matches to prior year results for Algebra II, Group 2, and  Geometry Groups 1 and 2. The percentage of students achieving the Proficient +  Advanced level was within about 1 percent for Geometry and within about 5 percent for  Algebra 2. Based on these results, there does not appear to be a decline of  performance for this year.
    3.4 State and School Results for Spring 2017  Table 3.3 (see the attached Excel document) shows the number and percent of  students that achieved the Proficient + Advanced level by school. The data for the state  is presented in the first row for each subject.
    3.5 State and District Results Across Spring Administrations  Table 3.4 (see the attached Excel document) shows the number and percent of  students that achieved the Proficient + Advanced level by district across the Spring  2015, 2016, and 2017 administrations. The data for the state is presented in the first  row for each subject.

    MO EOC Spring 2017 Online Testing Network Slowdown
    4. Summary and Conclusion  The results contained in this document are intended to shed light on the demographic  characteristics and performance level results of the students who experienced the  network slowdown. Based on the data presented, the demographic results and the  performance level results indicated no consistent pattern for Group 1 and Group 2  compared to the students who did not experience the network slowdown. Results from  the prior year indicate that students were performing similarly this year. Where larger  subgroup differences were seen, the n-counts were smaller, raising the potential for  those differences to be due to random factors.