NC EMPT
Project Summary
2008- 2009
Change is often a very good thing. NC EMPT services to high schools were
unexpectedly interrupted during the early fall of 2008, and the September
invitations to participate to all public and non- public high schools were abruptly
halted. After an exhausting battle with the organization that has supplied our
placement testing questions for the past twelve years, we decided to move on. So
we dug in our heels, carefully researched the current math placement tests given
at NC community colleges and UNC institutions, listened to suggestions for
improvement made by participating teachers, consulted with EMPT programs in
other states, and then offered a new and improved “ practice” math placement
exam during the spring of 2009. As a facsimile of actual college math placement
exams, the new test is more comprehensive and now includes diverse questions
from Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II. We expanded and updated the choices
students have when indicating their future college major, and the individualized
information we provide about the required math courses for these majors is even
more helpful. Our new logo design as seen above represents two things: a
positive move towards helping better prepare high school students for the 21st
century, and our efforts to provide the best reality check of readiness for college-level
mathematics. Incredibly, there is still no cost to participating students or
high schools for our timely and eye- opening services. For the past thirteen years,
NC EMPT strongly continues as an early intervention program sponsored by the
State of North Carolina. Two pages of informative NC EMPT Quick Stats follow.
Despite the turbulent circumstances during the
fall of 2008, loyal high school teachers quickly
came aboard during the second semester. Dr.
Robert Bernhardt, director, and Ellen Hilgoe,
associate director, remained steadfastly at the
helm. In all, nearly 24,000 students participated
within just five short months. This represents
more than half of the number who participated
the previous year. Most reassuringly, the
number of teachers participating this year was
617 which represents only a 29% decline from
the previous year. Despite the unfortunate
missed opportunity to offer the testing service
during the fall, our quick spring rebound still
qualified the program to remain the largest early
math placement testing program in the nation!
Paper- and- pencil still remains the most convenient and popular of our avenues of
testing. In 2008- 2009, 88% of participating schools utilized this method of
testing. In its third year of promotion and availability, Web- based testing was
embraced by only 29 high schools. Explanations for the choices of testing
avenues made by teachers can be found in the “ Evaluation of the 2008- 2009
Year” beginning on p. 51. Ohio EMPT, the longest running early math placement
testing program in the nation, has also noted the preference by high school math
teachers for paper- and- pencil testing. According to Dr. Ed Laughbaum, director
of Ohio EMPT, only 10- 12% of their participating students used Web- based
testing last year.
The NC EMPT Program remains a windfall for students hoping and planning to
further their education by attending a college or university. It offers a wealth of
current resources to help students avoid the costly pitfalls of math remediation at
the college level. Representatives from the mathematics departments of
University of North Carolina ( UNC) institutions and North Carolina community
colleges are members of the advisory board. Representatives from the NC
Department of Public Instruction and the UNC General Administration are also
included. The board meets annually to update the NC EMPT test and to ensure
that it remains a facsimile of the math placement tests given on their own
campuses ( see pp. 6- 7). In addition, students receive individualized results with
eye- opening advice about their current mathematical strengths and weaknesses,
beginning required math courses for their chosen college major, and the actual
math placement testing procedure used at the NC community college or UNC
institution of their choice ( see pp. 17- 20). High school teachers and
administrators are kept abreast of the latest news and updates regarding
mathematics at the NC Department of Public Instruction and the UNC General
Administration. The NC EMPT Web site: www. ncempt. org provides students,
parents, teachers, and administrators with up- to- date information related to
college mathematics placement testing. Articulation continues to be a major staff
effort as the NC EMPT Program strives to improve communication at all levels of
education and help bridge the divide between high school and college- level
mathematics.
Make a
Successful
Leap
from
High School
to
College- level
Mathematics!
60 copies of this public document were printed at a cost of $ 508.94, or $ 8.48 per copy.
Dr. Robert Bernhardt, Director
Ellen Hilgoe, Associate Director
Ph: 252‐ 328‐ 6418
Fax: 252‐ 328‐ 2166
E‐ mail: ncempt@ ncempt. org
Web site: www. ncempt. org
S tudents Pa r tic ipa t ing in N C EMPT
3 3,83 3
3 8,26 1 38 ,82 1
3 3,54 9
4 6,41 8
43,0 63
23 ,476
2 7,4 56
41 ,520 43 ,71 4
4 7,92 5
27 ,03 0
8 ,1 95
0
10 ,0 0 0
20 ,0 0 0
30 ,0 0 0
40 ,0 0 0
50 ,0 0 0
60 ,0 0 0
1996-
97
1997-
98
1998-
99
1999-
00
2000-
01
2001-
02
2002-
03
2003-
04
2004-
05
2005-
06
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
Number of Students
Update: August 2009
What is NC EMPT? The NC Early Math Placement Testing Program
provides high school students with a non‐ threatening, eye‐ opening,
reality check of their readiness for college‐ level mathematics… and it is
a FREE service to high schools and students!
High Schools Participating
in NC EMPT
243
243
285
287
288
189
251
66
205
302
303
292
293
0 100 200 300 400 500
1996- 97
1997- 98
1998- 99
1999- 00
2000- 01
2001- 02
2002- 03
2003- 04
2004- 05
2005- 06
2006- 07
2007- 08
2008- 09
Number of Schools
High School Math Teachers
Participating in
NC EMPT during 2008‐ 09:
617
FAST FEEDBACK!
Average turnaround time for the return of
test results to 23,476 students last year
was 2.4 days!!
* Note that testing during 2008‐ 2009 occurred only during the second half of the school year.
Grade Level of Participating Students, 2008‐ 2009
􀀹 36% seniors
􀀹 37% juniors
􀀹 20% sophomores
􀀹 4% freshmen
􀀹 3% did not respond
NC EMPT has been continuously
directed by faculty and staff at
East Carolina University since
the program’s inception.
Registration and participation in
NC EMPT is free- of- charge to all
public and non- public high schools.
Register 􀀃 now 􀀃 at: 􀀃
http:// www. ncempt. org 􀀃
for 􀀃 the 􀀃 2009 􀍲 2010 􀀃 year 􀀃
NC EMPT Participation S- T- R- E- T- C- H- E- S Across ALL of North Carolina!
Reasons 􀀃 why 􀀃 high 􀀃 school 􀀃 students 􀀃 and 􀀃 their 􀀃 parents 􀀃 like 􀀃 taking 􀀃 the 􀀃 NC 􀀃 EMPT 􀀃 test 􀀃
􀁸 It 􀀃 is 􀀃 a 􀀃 reality 􀀃 check 􀀃 of 􀀃 the 􀀃 current 􀀃 readiness 􀀃 for 􀀃 college 􀍲 level 􀀃 mathematics. 􀀃
􀁸 It 􀀃 helps 􀀃 students 􀀃 understand 􀀃 what 􀀃 skills 􀀃 must 􀀃 be 􀀃 improved 􀀃 so 􀀃 the 􀀃 appropriate 􀀃
degree 􀍲 counting 􀀃 math 􀀃 course 􀀃 can 􀀃 be 􀀃 taken ��� and 􀀃 passed 􀀃 in 􀀃 college. 􀀃
􀁸 It 􀀃 provides 􀀃 eye 􀍲 opening 􀀃 information 􀀃 about 􀀃 the 􀀃 actual 􀀃 math 􀀃 placement 􀀃
procedure 􀀃 and 􀀃 required 􀀃 math 􀀃 course( s) 􀀃 for 􀀃 the 􀀃 major 􀀃 and 􀀃 institution 􀀃 of 􀀃 their 􀀃
choice. 􀀃
􀀃
􀀃 Reasons 􀀃 why 􀀃 high 􀀃 school 􀀃 math 􀀃 teachers 􀀃 and 􀀃 administrators 􀀃 like 􀀃 NC 􀀃 EMPT 􀀃 􀀃
􀁸 It 􀀃 is 􀀃 excellent 􀀃 preparation 􀀃 for 􀀃 college 􀍲 bound 􀀃 students. 􀀃
􀁸 It 􀀃 is 􀀃 a 􀀃 non 􀍲 threatening, 􀀃 up 􀍲 to 􀍲 date, 􀀃 “ practice” 􀀃 math 􀀃 placement 􀀃 test 􀀃 with 􀀃 all 􀀃
materials 􀀃 provided 􀀃 FREE, 􀀃 easy 􀀃 administration, 􀀃 and 􀀃 immediate 􀀃 feedback. 􀀃
􀁸 Current 􀀃 information 􀀃 about 􀀃 expectations 􀀃 and 􀀃 requirements 􀀃 in 􀀃 mathematics 􀀃
curriculum 􀀃 for 􀀃 fifty 􀍲 eight 􀀃 community 􀀃 colleges 􀀃 and 􀀃 fifteen 􀀃 UNC 􀀃 institutions. 􀀃
EYE 􀍲 OPENING 􀀃
information 􀀃
that 􀀃 benefits 􀀃 􀀃
everyone! 􀀃
Note: NC 􀀃 EMPT 􀀃 results 􀀃 are 􀀃 quickly 􀀃 returned 􀀃 to 􀀃 students 􀀃 and 􀀃 teachers 􀀃 ONLY! 􀀃 􀀃 Results 􀀃 will 􀀃 NOT 􀀃 be 􀀃 shared 􀀃 or 􀀃 compared! 􀀃
A 􀀃 Survey 􀀃 of 􀀃 2008 􀍲 2009 􀀃 Participating 􀀃 Teachers 􀀃 found. 􀀃 . 􀀃 . 􀀃 􀀃
􀀃
􀁪 83% 􀀃 strongly 􀀃 agreed 􀀃 or 􀀃 agreed 􀀃 that 􀀃 their 􀀃 students 􀀃 found 􀀃 their 􀀃 NC 􀀃 EMPT 􀀃
experience 􀀃 helpful 􀀃 and 􀀃 useful 􀀃 for 􀀃 future 􀀃 college 􀀃 plans. 􀀃
􀁪 89% 􀀃 strongly 􀀃 agreed 􀀃 or 􀀃 agreed 􀀃 that 􀀃 their 􀀃 students 􀀃 were 􀀃 attentive 􀀃 and 􀀃 tested 􀀃
with 􀀃 a 􀀃 serious 􀀃 attitude. 􀀃
􀁪 93% 􀀃 strongly 􀀃 agreed 􀀃 or 􀀃 agreed 􀀃 that 􀀃 the 􀀃 NC 􀀃 EMPT 􀀃 Program 􀀃 accomplished 􀀃 its 􀀃
goal 􀀃 of 􀀃 providing 􀀃 participating 􀀃 high 􀀃 school 􀀃 students 􀀃 with 􀀃 a 􀀃 “ reality 􀀃 check” 􀀃 of 􀀃
their 􀀃 readiness 􀀃 for 􀀃 college 􀍲 level 􀀃 mathematics. 􀀃
􀁪 96% 􀀃 strongly 􀀃 agreed 􀀃 or 􀀃 agreed 􀀃 that 􀀃 overall 􀀃 the 􀀃 NC 􀀃 EMPT 􀀃 Program 􀀃 provides 􀀃 a 􀀃
valuable 􀀃 service 􀀃 to 􀀃 high 􀀃 school 􀀃 students 􀀃 and 􀀃 teachers. 􀀃
􀁪 97% 􀀃 strongly 􀀃 agreed 􀀃 or 􀀃 agreed 􀀃 that 􀀃 the 􀀃 NC 􀀃 EMPT 􀀃 Office 􀀃 promptly 􀀃 returned 􀀃
hard 􀀃 copies 􀀃 of 􀀃 test 􀀃 score 􀀃 summaries 􀀃 to 􀀃 teachers 􀀃 and 􀀃 individualized 􀀃 results 􀀃
letters 􀀃 to 􀀃 students. 􀀃
WHO 􀀃 should 􀀃 take 􀀃 the 􀀃 valuable 􀀃 practice 􀀃
math 􀀃 placement 􀀃 test 􀀃 offered 􀀃 by 􀀃 NC 􀀃 EMPT? 􀀃 􀀃
􀀃 􀀃 􀀃 􀀃 􀀃 High 􀀃 school 􀀃 students 􀀃 enrolled 􀀃 in: 􀀃
􀁸 Algebra 􀀃 II 􀀃
􀁸 Integrated 􀀃 Math �� III 􀀃
􀁸 Advanced 􀀃 Functions 􀀃 and 􀀃
Modeling 􀀃
􀁸 Pre 􀍲 Calculus 􀀃
􀁸 Discrete 􀀃 Math 􀀃
􀁸 Statistics 􀀃
􀁸 and 􀀃 other 􀀃 upper 􀍲 level 􀀃
math 􀀃 courses. 􀀃
Each pushpin in the state map above represents
a participating high school during 2008- 2009.
Did 􀀃 you 􀀃 know 􀀃 that 􀀃 the 􀀃 NC 􀀃 EMPT 􀀃 Web 􀀃 site 􀀃 has 􀀃 a 􀀃 wealth 􀀃 of 􀀃 information 􀀃 about 􀀃 math 􀀃 placement 􀀃 􀀃
testing 􀀃 at 􀀃 colleges 􀀃 and 􀀃 universities 􀀃 statewide?! 􀀃 􀀃 CHECK 􀀃 IT 􀀃 OUT: 􀀃 www. ncempt. org 􀀃
I. From the Director
Dr. Robert Bernhardt, October 2009
Last year was fraught with difficulties. Our long association with the
mathematics placement testing program of the Mathematical Association of
America was terminated, and could not be restarted in time for us to offer testing
in the fall of 2008. We were able to obtain strong support from EMPT programs
in Kentucky, Wisconsin, and Ohio in obtaining a new test. We settled on the
Ohio EMPT test, and we were able to restart our testing program in the spring of
2009. Thus the sharp decline in the numbers of high school students testing with
us in 2008- 2009, as opposed to the years previous to this one.
Some very good things have come from this change, I think. While the new test is
harder than the old test, and contains a greater diversity of problems, most
comments from secondary teachers have been positive. In addition, Ohio EMPT
has data that indicates that the mathematics placement tests used in Ohio place
students more accurately than many commercial placement tests, such as ACT
and Accuplacer. And the Ohio EMPT test is built on these placement tests.
Validity measures of this type are very nice to see.
However, our problems are not over. We are now having difficulty with the
online Web- based version of the test. Until we can resolve this issue, we are
forced to fall back on using paper- and- pencil testing only. The good news is that
this will not affect most of the teachers and students participating in our
program, since only 12% of the students who test with us use online testing. The
bad news is that online testing is probably the wave of the future. Thus we need
to resolve this problem, and we will be working to do this in the coming months.
1
2
II. From the Associate Director
Ellen Hilgoe, August 2009
The difficult budget crisis throughout the nation during the spring semester
tightened belts statewide, and prohibited the summer promotional travel I
heavily rely on. It is especially important for me to advocate in person the
services NC EMPT provides to high school teachers across the state, particularly
teachers new to the field of high school mathematics. I am inspired by the
legions of math teachers who support NC EMPT year after year and I trust they
will help “ spread the word” to all math faculty on their high school campuses and
in their school systems. Their understanding and loyalty amazed me as they
quickly came aboard again in the spring, even after our fall hiatus from testing.
We are very thankful that our efforts to provide early intervention in the critical
area of college math placement are recognized. We continue to be sponsored by
the State of North Carolina and will soon begin our fourteenth year of service.
We are also appreciative of the continued support of East Carolina University,
particularly that of Dr. Linner Griffin, Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic
Programs.
A third obstacle faced during the year included difficulties in our newly offered
avenue of Web- based testing. Despite three years of promotional efforts and the
important experience of online testing for students, the vast majority of high
school teachers prefer paper- and- pencil testing. In addition, the company that
has provided the platform for this testing has also decided that they can no longer
I must admit that during the
tumultuous 2008- 2009 testing year,
I often found myself “ hanging on” as
waves of change crashed overhead
when least expected. The inability to
offer early math placement testing
during the fall semester was very
disheartening, especially knowing
that many high school students
follow a block schedule and thus
missed the NC EMPT opportunity if
they took their only 2008- 2009
math course during the fall
semester. One very positive result,
however, was a much improved
spring test version with more
comprehensive and individualized
college information provided to
students.
3
provide the same level of service. With the generous help of other EMPT
programs nationwide, namely Ohio EMPT and Wisconsin EMPT, we’ll carefully
study their successful online testing methods, listen to the feedback from high
school teachers and college faculty, and plan to offer a more efficient model soon.
The challenges the program faced could not have been met without the
tremendous support of our small staff. Our student workers are some of the best
I’ve ever had, and they never wavered in their willingness to work hard and get
the job done. I also appreciate the longevity and invaluable knowledge of the
director, Dr. Robert Bernhardt, and long- time consultants David Hodges, Brian
Manning, and Robert Elliott. I am surrounded by very helpful people who
strongly believe in NC EMPT and keep me afloat. A heartfelt THANK YOU to all!
Christmas 2008 Luncheon ( left to right):
Cayleigh Blackwell, student worker; Chelsea
Anderson, student worker; Dr. Robert
Bernhardt, director; Ellen Hilgoe, associate
director; Carla Watson, student worker.
Easter Party in the NC EMPT Workroom:
( left to right): Cayleigh Blackwell, student
worker; Jaleesa Minor, student worker; Ellen
Hilgoe, associate director; Bob Longest,
student worker; and Mike Kapetanakis, student
worker.
( left) Robert Elliott,
technology consultant;
( right) David Hodges,
database consultant;
and
( below) Brian
Manning, web site
consultant
4
III. Introduction
The NC EMPT Program hopes to raise awareness of the importance of
mathematics, and strives to give future incoming college freshmen an early
warning of the mathematics skills necessary for successful placement in college-level
mathematics.
By offering this non- threatening advice with opportune timing, that is, while
students are still in high school and can maneuver to correct weaknesses, NC
EMPT hopes to motivate students to remain strong in mathematics and avoid the
expensive pitfalls caused by lack of retention or lack of knowledge of the skills
needed for success at the college level. The 2008- 2009 placement test questions
are based on objectives in the areas of number and operation, algebra, and
geometry. The questions were a result of a thorough study of current math
placement tests used at NC community colleges and UNC institutions.
Understanding the Basics of an EMPT Program
Early Mathematics Placement Testing concisely describes a valuable intervention
service provided to high school students in programs across the nation. The test
allows students to experience a facsimile of an actual mathematics placement
exam well before the first semester in college. Thus students, teachers, and
parents become more aware of expectations, and therefore more able to react
positively in a timely fashion. Student results letters are individualized, offer a
wealth of information about mathematical readiness, and provide a “ reality
check” of a student’s current mastery of mathematics skills.
Some EMPT programs in the United States target high school juniors, in the hope
that reinforcement of mathematics skills or corrective action can be taken in the
senior year. The North Carolina program offers “ practice” placement testing to
students close to competing Algebra II and to students in upper- level math
courses. This may include sophomores, juniors, or seniors. A new version of the
NC EMPT test is created each year, and teachers are encouraged to test students
near the end of their Algebra II term and during each subsequent math course.
Reinforcement and retention of algebra skills is critical because university
mathematics placement tests consist primarily of algebra questions. For a closer
Avoid Rusty
Math Skills!
Link Successfully
to College- Level
Mathematics!
5
look at the North Carolina EMPT Program, please read the documents found in
Appendix A.
Historically, a variety of EMPT programs have been offered, or are currently
being considered, in at least twenty- nine states across the nation since the 1980s.
Unfortunately, many of these have ceased to exist due to several factors including
competition from existing mandated testing and funding problems. Currently,
strong programs exist in Ohio, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Wisconsin.
Organization of the NC EMPT Program
East Carolina University ( ECU) operated a four- year pilot early math placement
testing program from fall 1992 to spring 1996. Sixteen area high schools were
involved, and ECU sponsored the pilot. As chair of the ECU Mathematics
Department, Dr. Robert Bernhardt directed the program with the help of Dr.
Sunday Ajose, and secretarial help was provided by the mathematics department
staff. Funding for NC EMPT originated in the NC General Assembly in fall 1996
and was permanently transferred to ECU in fall 1996. A full- time program
manager and office assistant were added to the staff. The program reached out to
all public and non- pubic high schools statewide in 1997- 1998. Participation
numbers increased to an annual high of 47,925 high school students. NC EMPT
has been continuously directed by faculty and staff at ECU since the program’s
inception.
NC EMPT has also been very fortunate to be overseen by a diverse and talented
advisory board. Representatives from UNC institutions, NC community colleges,
and the NC Department of Public Instruction are included. The members meet
annually each October and correspond often via phone, e- mail, and postal mail
throughout the year.
The following list includes the members of the 2008- 09 Advisory Board:
Appalachian State Univ. William Bauldry Dept. of Mathematical Sciences
Dept. of Public Instruction Everly Broadway
Chief, Middle/ Secondary Section,
Mathematics Education Division
Dept. of Public Instruction Carmella Fair Secondary Mathematics Consultant
Dept. of Public Instruction Johannah Maynor Secondary Mathematics Consultant
East Carolina University Robert Bernhardt
NC EMPT Director and Dept. of
Mathematics
East Carolina University Ellen Hilgoe NC EMPT Associate Director
Elizabeth City State
University Darnell Johnson
Chair, Dept. of Mathematics &
Computer Science
Fayetteville State University Vinod Arya
Chair, Dept. of Mathematics &
Computer Science
NC A& T State University Guoqing Tang Interim Chair, Dept. of Mathematics
NC Community College
System Wanda White
Director, Student Development
Services
NC Central University Laura Smith
Dept. of Mathematics & Computer
Science
NC State University Harvey Charlton Dept. of Mathematics
UNC Asheville Peter Kendrick
Director, Mathematics Assistance
Center
6
UNC- Chapel Hill Joseph Plante Dept. of Mathematics
UNC Charlotte Mohammad Kazemi Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Mathematics
UNC Greensboro Paul Duvall
Department of Mathematics &
Statistics
UNC General Administration Bruce Mallette Senior Associate Vice President for
Academic and Student Affairs
UNC Pembroke Steve Bourquin
Chair, Dept. of Mathematics &
Computer Science
UNC Wilmington Kenneth Gurganus Dept. of Mathematics & Statistics
Western Carolina University Nory Prochaska
Director, Mathematics Tutoring
Center, Dept. of Mathematics &
Computer Science
Winston- Salem State Univ. John O. Adeyeye Chair, Dept. of Mathematics
Wake Technical Community
College
Robert Kimball
Chair, Dept. of Mathematics &
Physics
Outreach Efforts of the NC EMPT Program
The following groups are contacted via e- mail, postal mail, and in presentations
at workshops and conferences:
􀁸 North Carolina public and non- public high school mathematics
department chairs, mathematics teachers, school counseling department
chairs, and principals
􀁸 North Carolina public school system superintendents, directors of
secondary instruction, and secondary math coordinators
􀁸 NC community college presidents, mathematics department chairs, and
testing coordinators
􀁸 University of North Carolina institution chancellors, mathematics
department chairs, and directors of admissions
􀁸 North Carolina State Board of Education
􀁸 North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
􀁸 North Carolina Council of Teachers of Mathematics
􀁸 North Carolina Mathematics and Science Education Network Center
directors and Pre- College Program coordinators
􀁸 North Carolina Mathematics Association of Two- Year Colleges
􀁸 National early mathematics placement testing programs and individuals
interested in such programs in the following states: Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Nevada,
Oklahoma, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin
􀁸 Achieve, Inc. - American Diploma Project, Washington, D. C.
7
A Quick Look at NC EMPT Participation
Numbers, 1997- 2009
Pilot - Spring 1997:
Total Number of NC High Schools Solicited 80
Total Number of NC High Schools That Signed- Up For Testing 72
Total Number of NC High Schools That Actually Tested 66
Total Number of Students Tested 8,195
1997- 1998:
Total Number of NC High Schools Solicited 376
Total Number of NC High Schools That Signed- Up For Testing 226
Total Number of NC High Schools That Actually Tested 205
Total Number of Students Tested 27,456
1998- 1999:
Total Number of NC High Schools Solicited 357
Total Number of NC High Schools That Signed- Up For Testing 202
Total Number of NC High Schools That Actually Tested 189
Total Number of Students Tested 27,030
1999- 2000:
Total Number of NC High Schools Solicited 637
Pretesting ( with the 1998- 1999 version of the NC EMPT test):
Total Number of NC High Schools that Signed- Up 9
Total Number of NC High Schools that Actually Tested 4
Total Number of Students Pretested 364
Placement Testing ( with the new 1999- 2000 version of the NC EMPT test):
Total Number of NC High Schools That Signed- Up For Testing 273
Total Number of NC High Schools That Actually Tested 251
Total Number of Students Tested 33,469
Grand Total of Students Tested in 1999- 2000 33,833
2000- 2001:
Total Number of NC High Schools Solicited 658
Pretesting ( with the 1999- 2000 version of the NC EMPT test):
Total Number of NC High Schools that Signed- Up 58
Total Number of NC High Schools that Actually Tested 37
Total Number of Students Pretested 3,259
Placement Testing ( with the new 2000- 2001 version of the NC EMPT test):
Total Number of NC High Schools That Signed- Up For Testing 307
Total Number of NC High Schools That Actually Tested 280
Total Number of Students Tested 35,002
Grand Total of Participating High Schools ( nonoverlapping) 288
Grand Total of Students Tested in 2000- 2001 38,261
8
2001- 2002:
Total Number of NC High Schools Solicited 650
Pretesting ( with the 2000- 2001 version of the NC EMPT test):
Total Number of NC High Schools that Signed- Up 67
Total Number of NC High Schools that Actually Tested 52
Total Number of Students Pretested 3,716
Placement Testing ( with the new 2001- 2002 version of the NC EMPT test):
Total Number of NC High Schools That Signed- Up For Testing 299
Total Number of NC High Schools That Actually Tested 279
Total Number of Students Tested 37,804
Grand Total of Participating High Schools ( nonoverlapping) 287
Grand Total of Students Tested in 2001- 2002 41,520
2002- 2003:
Total Number of NC High Schools Solicited 648
( this includes 358 public and 290 non- public schools)
Pretesting ( with the 2001- 2002 version of the NC EMPT test):
Total Number of NC High Schools that Signed- Up 65
Total Number of NC High Schools that Actually Tested 50
Total Number of Students Pretested 4,422
Placement Testing ( with the new 2002- 2003 version of the NC EMPT test):
Total Number of NC High Schools That Signed- Up For Testing 311
Total Number of NC High Schools That Actually Tested 278
Total Number of Students Tested 34,399
Grand Total of Participating High Schools ( nonoverlapping) 285
Grand Total of Students Tested in 2002- 2003 38,821
2003- 2004:
Total Number of NC High Schools Solicited 643
( this includes 370 public and 273 non- public schools)
Pretesting ( with the 2002- 2003 version of the NC EMPT test):
Total Number of NC High Schools that Signed- Up 51
Total Number of NC High Schools that Actually Tested 34
Total Number of Students Pretested 4,084
Placement Testing ( with the new 2003- 2004 version of the NC EMPT test):
Total Number of NC High Schools That Signed- Up For Testing 266
Total Number of NC High Schools That Actually Tested 232
Total Number of Students Tested 29,465
Grand Total of Participating High Schools ( nonoverlapping) 243
Grand Total of Students Tested in 2003- 2004 33,549
9
2004- 2005:
Total Number of NC High Schools Solicited 629
( this includes 370 public and 259 non- public schools)
Pretesting ( with the 2003- 2004 version of the NC EMPT test):
Total Number of NC High Schools that Signed- Up 69
Total Number of NC High Schools that Actually Tested 68
Total Number of Students Pretested 6,339
Placement Testing ( with the new 2004- 2005 version of the NC EMPT test):
Total Number of NC High Schools That Signed- Up For Testing 308
Total Number of NC High Schools That Actually Tested 244
Total Number of Students Tested 37,375
Grand Total of Participating High Schools ( nonoverlapping) 302
Grand Total of Students Tested in 2004- 2005 43,714
2005- 2006:
Total Number of NC High Schools Solicited 626
( this includes 378 public and 248 non- public schools)
Pretesting ( with the 2004- 2005 version of the NC EMPT test):
Total Number of NC High Schools that Signed- Up 78
Total Number of NC High Schools that Actually Tested 65
Total Number of Students Pretested 5,919
Placement Testing ( with the new 2005- 2006 version of the NC EMPT test):
Total Number of NC High Schools That Signed- Up For Testing 318
Total Number of NC High Schools That Actually Tested 285
Total Number of Students Tested 42,006
Grand Total of Participating High Schools ( nonoverlapping)* 303
Grand Total of Students Tested in 2005- 2006 47,925
2006- 2007:
Total Number of NC High Schools Solicited 752
( this includes 502 public and 250 non- public schools)
Pretesting ( with the 2005- 2006 version of the NC EMPT test):
Total Number of NC High Schools that Signed- Up 87
Total Number of NC High Schools that Actually Tested 73
Total Number of Students Pretested 7,016
Placement Testing ( with the new 2006- 2007 version of the NC EMPT test):
Total Number of NC High Schools That Signed- Up For Testing 310
Total Number of NC High Schools That Actually Tested 274
Total Number of Students Tested 39,402
Grand Total of Participating High Schools ( nonoverlapping)* 292
Grand Total of Students Tested in 2006- 2007 46,418
10
2007- 2008:
Total Number of NC High Schools Solicited 780
( this includes 534 public and 246 non- public schools)
Pretesting ( with the 2006- 2007 version of the NC EMPT test):
Total Number of NC High Schools that Signed- Up 73
Total Number of NC High Schools that Actually Tested 52
Total Number of Students Pretested 5,763
Placement Testing ( with the new 2007- 2008 version of the NC EMPT test):
Total Number of NC High Schools That Signed- Up For Testing 330
Total Number of NC High Schools That Actually Tested 280
Total Number of Students Tested 37,300
Grand Total of Participating High Schools ( nonoverlapping)* 293
Grand Total of Students Tested in 2007- 2008 43,063
2008- 2009:
Total Number of NC High Schools Solicited 792
( this includes 542 public and 250 non- public schools)
Pretesting ( with the 2007- 2008 version of the NC EMPT test):
Total Number of NC High Schools that Signed- Up 33
Total Number of NC High Schools that Actually Tested 20
Total Number of Students Pretested 1,794
Placement Testing ( with the new 2008- 2009 version of the NC EMPT test):
Total Number of NC High Schools That Signed- Up For Testing 283
Total Number of NC High Schools That Actually Tested 233
Total Number of Students Tested 21,682
Grand Total of Participating High Schools ( nonoverlapping)* 243
Grand Total of Students Tested in 2008- 2009 23,476
* A list of the 243 participating schools in 2008- 2009 follows 􀂟
11
North Carolina Early Mathematics
Placement Testing Program
Participating High Schools for 2008- 2009
A C Reynolds
A L Brown
A Performance Learning Center
Alexander Central
Anson New Technology
Antioch Christian Academy
Ardrey Kell
Arendell Parrott Academy
Ashe County
Asheville
Bertie
Bertie STEM
Bethel Christian Academy
( Canton)
Bethel Christian Academy
( Kinston)
Bible Baptist Christian School
Bishop McGuiness Catholic
Brevard
Buncombe County Early
College
Bunker Hill
Burns
Caldwell Academy
Calvary Baptist Day School
Cape Fear Christian Academy
Cardinal Gibbons
Carolina Christian School
Cary
Cary Christian School
Cedar Ridge
Central Academy @ Lake Park
Central Davidson
Chapel Hill
Charles B Aycock
Charlotte Catholic
Clayton
Clover Garden Charter School
Clyde A Erwin
Coastal Christian
Community Baptist School
Community Christian School
Cornerstone Christian School
Crest
Crossroads Christian School
( Henderson)
Cumberland Evening Academy
D H Conley
David W Butler
Davie County
Dixon
Douglas Byrd
Durham Performance Learning
Center
Durham School of the Arts
E A Laney
E E Smith
E T Beddingfield
Early College of Forsyth
Early College @ Guilford
East Bladen
East Davidson
East Duplin
East Forsyth
East Gaston
East Mecklenburg
East Surry
East Wake School of
Health Sciences
East Wilkes
Eastern Alamance
Eastern Guilford
Edgecombe Early College
Enka
Eugene Ashley
Falls Rd Baptist Church
School
Farmville Central
Fayetteville Christian School
Fike
First Assembly Christian School
( Concord)
First Flight
Forest Hills
Forsyth Country Day School
Franklin
Gaston Christian School
Gates County Senior
Goldsboro
Grace Christian School
( Raleigh)
Grace Christian School
( Sanford)
Granville Central
Greene Central
Greenfield School
Greensboro Day School
Grimsley
Guilford Day School
Harding University
Harnett Central
Harrells Christian Academy
Havelock
Hayworth Christian School
Heide Trask
Hendersonville Christian
School
Hibriten
Hickory
High Point Christian Academy
Highland School of
Technology
Highlands School
Hiwassee Dam
Hobgood Academy
Hoke County
Holly Springs
Independence
( Charlotte)
J F Webb
J F Webb School of Health
& Life Sciences
J H Rose
Jack Britt
Jacket Academy @ Carver
Jacksonville
James Hunt
Jesse C Carson
John T Hoggard
Jones Senior
Jordan- Matthews
Kings Mountain
Kinston
Lawrence Academy
Lee Christian School
( Sanford)
Leesville Road
Lejeune
Lincolnton
Macon County Early College
Mallard Creek
Manteo
Marie G. Davis Military &
Global Academy
Math, Sci, Pre- Eng, & Tech @
Olympic
Mattamuskeet
McDowell
Metrolina Christian Academy
Mooresville
Mount Pleasant
Mount Tabor
Nash Central
Neuse Baptist Christian School
New Bern
New Hanover
New Technology High @
Garinger
Norlina Christian School
North Brunswick
North Edgecombe
North Forsyth
North Henderson
North Iredell
North Lenoir
North Lincoln
North Mecklenburg
North Moore
North Pitt
North Raleigh Christian
Academy
Northampton High- East
Northeastern
Northern
( Durham)
Northern Guilford
Northern Nash
Northside
( Jacksonville)
Northside
( Pinetown)
Northside Christian Academy
Northwest Cabarrus
Northwest Guilford
Northwood Temple Academy
Oak Ridge Military Academy
Oakwood School
Orange
Page
Parkland
Pender
Person
Phillip O Berry Academy of
Technology
Piedmont
Porter Ridge
Providence Grove
R B Glenn
Reagan
Reid Ross Classical School
Renaissance School @ Olympic
Resurrection Christian School
Richlands
Ridgecroft School
Riverside
Roanoke
Roanoke Rapids
Rockwell Christian School
Rocky Mount Preparatory School
Roxboro Christian Academy
Rutherford County Early College
Salem Academy
School of Biotechnology &
Health @ Olympic
School of International Studies @
Olympic
School of Math, Sci, & Envir @
Garinger
Seventy- First
Smithfield- Selma
Smoky Mountain
South Caldwell
South Mecklenburg
South Point
South Stanly
Southern Alamance
Southern Guilford
Southern Nash
Southlake Christian Academy
Southside
Southwestern Randolph
Spring Creek
Starmount
Sun Valley
Surry Central
Swansboro
Tabernacle Christian School
( Hickory)
Tarboro
The Asheville School
Tri- City Christian School
Tri- County Christian School
Trinity
Tuscola
Vandalia Christian School
Victory Christian Center
School
Wake Christian Academy
Wake Forest/ Rolesville
Wakefield
Walter M Williams
Warren Early College
Washington
Watauga
Wayne Early Middle College
Weddington
West Bladen
West Caldwell
West Charlotte
West Craven
West Forsyth
West Johnston
West Montgomery
West Stanly
Westchester Country Day
School
Whiteville
Williamston
Wilson Christian Academy
Winston- Salem Prep Academy
Woodlawn School
Zebulon B Vance
13
14
IV. Summary of 2008- 2009 Testing
Two versions of the NC EMPT test were administered during the year. For those
schools interested in pretesting early in a new term for diagnostic purposes, the
previous 2007- 2008 version was used ( data for this Option # 1 can be found on
page 11). Option # 2, used by the vast majority of schools, was to administer the
new 2008- 2009 version of the NC EMPT test. Schools have the choice to
participate in Option # 1 or Option # 2, or both. Teachers had the opportunity to
administer the traditional paper- and- pencil test or to use a Web- based version of
the same test. Interesting data is given below:
Participants Using the 2008- 2009 Version
of the NC EMPT Test ( Option # 2):
Time Period Number of High Schools Number of Students
Fall 2008 0 including 0 Web- based 0 including 0 Web- based
Spring 2009 233 including 29 Web- based 21,682 including 1,223 Web- based
Total for Year
233 including 29 Web- based
( nonoverlapping)
21,682 including 1,223 Web- based
NC EMPT Levels
Student opscan forms were graded at the NC EMPT office at East Carolina
University. Feedback was returned to the school’s contact person immediately,
within 2- 5 days after receipt of the opscans. The average turnaround time during
2008- 2009 for the return of test results to 23,476 students was 2.4 days. The
resulting scores were classified into one of four EMPT levels. Beginning in 1999-
2000, the numeration of these levels was aligned with the achievement levels
designed by the North Carolina State Board of Education in the ABCs
accountability plan. Level 1 is the lowest level and Level 4 is the highest:
High School Participation in Testing
Options # 1 or # 2, 2008- 2009
Option # 1 Option # 2
10 10 223
High School Participation in Option # 2
2008- 2009
Web- based Paper- and- Pencil
Testing Testing
28 1 204
15
EMPT Level Number of Correct Answers
1 0- 11
2 12- 16
3 17- 24
4 25- 32
These scores were then used to advise each student in a personalized letter. Each
letter contained a test score, the test score converted to a percent, a
corresponding EMPT level, a listing of the mathematical objective for each test
question, a listing of each answer given by the student, a listing of each correct
answer, and an interpretation of each student’s readiness to take college- level
mathematics courses. The suggested levels were interpreted as:
Level 1: A Level 1 score indicates the student is not ready for college-level
math courses and must take remedial mathematics.
Level 2: A Level 2 score indicates the student must take remedial
mathematics in some choices of majors.
Level 3: A Level 3 score indicates the student is ready for a beginning- level
college mathematics course. However, a Level 3 score may be
considered borderline at some universities for students planning
to major in math, science, or engineering.
Level 4: A Level 4 score indicates a solid high school preparation for
college- level mathematics. Some universities may allow a student
scoring at Level 4 on their math placement test to skip the first
college math course, depending on that student’s choice of major.
Each student’s results letter also included valuable advice about the beginning
required mathematics courses for their chosen major and the actual mathematics
placement procedure at the NC community college or UNC institution of their
choice. In addition, helpful Web site addresses were provided for the
mathematics department and math course descriptions for the college or
university of choice. Samples of student results letters at two different levels
follow.
The contact person of each participating high school also received a summary, in
various formats, of the test results of all students who participated at the school.
Individual teachers received helpful results by class and period. Each teacher
was provided with a copy of a brochure titled “ Mathematics Placement
Procedures at NC Community Colleges and UNC Constituent Institutions, 2008-
2009,” a handy reference tool for their college- bound students. The brochure is
updated each year by the associate director upon the advice of the NC EMPT
Advisory Board members who represent the fifteen UNC campuses and fifty- eight
NC community colleges. A sample of this brochure follows as well.
16
17
18
19
20
Observations of Data
The 2008- 2009 school year was unique in more than one way. NC EMPT testing
occurred only during the spring semester for the first time since 1996. In
addition, the composition of the test changed substantially since the inception of
the program. Test questions no longer measured mastery of Algebra II skills
only, but also number and operation, geometry, and application problems.
Interesting and meaningful observations were made by the associate director:
􀁩 Of the 289 high school contact persons that registered for spring 2009
early math placement testing, 54% were math department chairs. The
vast majority of the others were high school math faculty members. A
few were school counselors or administrators.
􀁩 The turnaround time for test results, that is, the time it took the NC
EMPT office staff to process summary results and individualized results
letters for each student participant from the day completed opscan forms
arrived at the office to the day the results package was mailed out was an
amazing 2.4 days. This was quite an accomplishment despite a turbulent
year.
􀁩 Although student participation numbers declined from 43,063 to 23,476
( about 45%) from 2007- 08 to 2008- 09, the number of high school math
teachers whose classes participated only declined from 871 to 617 ( about
29%) across the state. Many high school teachers remained loyal to the
program, but did not test as many students due to smaller testing
windows in 2008- 09.
􀁩 Successful use of NC EMPT online services by high school teachers was
dependent on the activity.
a) In the past, hard copies of the registration forms for the Option
# 1 and # 2 test versions were completed and returned via U. S.
Postal Mail by most high school contact persons. During 2008-
09, 81% of the registration forms received were completed
online and only 19% of forms were hard copies received by mail
or fax.
b) The response rate to an end- of- year survey jumped from 44%
to 69% last year when an online survey was disseminated via
e- mail rather than including a paper survey with spring test
results.
c) Despite being the third year of promotion and availability of
Web- based testing, only 12% of participating schools chose this
avenue of testing. The majority of schools preferred paper- and-pencil
testing. The top reason cited for this preference was the
lack of class access to individual school computers. Surprisingly,
when the director of the more experienced Ohio EMPT Program
was asked what percent of the Ohio high schools employed
Web- based EMPT testing, his answer was 10- 12%.
23
􀁩 During 2008- 09, 73% of the participants were Caucasian. See the graph
on p. 29. NC EMPT testing is recommended for students enrolled in
Algebra II or in higher level math courses. It would be interesting to
note the race/ ethnicity of students statewide who are enrolled in Algebra
II or each of the higher level math courses.
􀁩 During 2008- 2009, 34% of public high schools in the state participated
in NC EMPT testing, while 24% of non- public high schools participated.
The year 2007- 2008 was more representative of participation since
testing occurred during both the fall and spring semesters. Even then,
only 44% of public and 24% of non- public high schools participated. The
NC EMPT service is voluntary and requires time taken from demanding
math curriculums and a high rate of other testing.
􀁩 The 2008- 09 test version was significantly different in scope than earlier
versions. This change was reflected in the average score earned out of 32
questions: In 2007- 08, the average score was 20.6 ( 64%), whereas in
2008- 09, the average score was 16.8 ( 53%). See the graph at the top of
p. 50. Read the variety of comments teachers made about the new test in
a survey of their 2008- 09 testing experience beginning on p. 58.
􀁩 During 2008- 09, most participants were enrolled in Algebra II or
Integrated Math III ( 32%), or Advanced Functions and Modeling ( 29%).
See the graph on p. 33.
􀁩 The change in test questions was also reflected in the placement levels of
participants. The test includes 32 questions. Level 1 represents the
lowest of four possible levels. Attaining a level 3 or 4 is interpreted to
mean that the student is ready for college- level math at most post-secondary
institutions. Note that in 2007- 08, 73% of participants
earned a test score within levels 3 or 4, whereas in 2008- 2009, only 51%
achieved these same levels. See the graph on p. 31.
Placement Level 2007- 2008 2008- 2009
1 ( score of 0- 11) 10% 21%
2 ( score of 12- 16) 18% 28%
3 ( score of 17- 24) 42% 39%
4 ( score of 25- 32) 31% 12%
􀁩 Overall, 52% of the participants were girls, and 44% were boys. In
studying the placement level earned by participants, girls outperformed
boys in levels 1, 2, and 3. Boys outscored girls in level 4 ( the highest)
only, and by only 1%. For those students taking the Web- based version
of the test only, girls achieved higher placement levels in all four level
categories. See the pie chart on the top of p. 28 and the graphs on p. 34.
􀁩 With regard to the placement level earned by grade level, sophomores
performed better than freshmen, juniors, or seniors in levels 3 and 4.
One explanation of this fact is that students enrolled in math classes at
the Algebra II level or higher as a sophomore are usually honors level
students. In the level 2 category, juniors performed better than students
24
from other grade levels. Also, the majority of the seniors taking the NC
EMPT test placed into level 3, and freshmen performed the most poorly
in each of the four levels. The stated eligibility guidelines for NC EMPT
testing includes students who are close to completing Algebra II or are
enrolled in a higher math course. Freshmen don’t normally meet these
guidelines. See the graph on p. 32.
􀁩 The first choice of school planning to attend included: UNC at Chapel
Hill ( 16% of participants), NC State University ( 14%), a community
college ( 12%), East Carolina University ( 11%) and Appalachian State
University ( 8%). See the graph on p. 44.
􀁩 Several major trends were noted as the history of data collected from
1996- 2009 was reviewed:
a) Over time, the number of juniors taking the NC EMPT test has slowly
declined to 37% while the number of seniors has increased to 36%.
Participating during the junior year gives students time to make
improvements in the weak math skills highlighted by NC EMPT
testing. Seniors that participate are motivated by the actual
upcoming math placement exams given by their college/ university of
choice. The number of sophomores declined from 34% in 1996- 97 to
20% in 2008- 2009. This may be due to the fact that NC EMPT
testing is not as applicable or effective for sophomores who are three
years away from taking actual college math placement exams. See
the graph on the top of p. 49.
b) The number of students planning to go to a college after high school
has changed. One possible explanation could be the poor state of the
national economy. See the graph at the bottom of p. 50.
Plans After High
School 2007- 2008 2008- 2009
4- year college or
university 80% 74%
2- year college or
community college
14% 12%
Initially attend a 2-
year college and then
attend a 4- year
college/ university
( not
measured) 2%
c) Students were given a more diverse 25 choices rather than 19 as in
the past of their “ most- likely college major.” The number one choice
during 2007- 08 and 2008- 09 remained the same: business,
management, and marketing. Pre- Med, Pre- Vet Medicine, or
Pharmacy moved from the 4th choice to the 2nd choice. Visual and
performing arts moved from the 5th choice to the 3rd choice. Nursing
appeared in the top five for the first time in 08- 09. See the
background questions in Appendix A and the table on the bottom of
p. 47.
25
26
Graphics Describing Testing Results
from the 2008- 2009 Version of the NC EMPT Test
A special thanks is given to David Hodges, our database consultant, for his time,
effort, and wisdom in creating these graphs.
High School Demographics:
Public High School Participation in NC EMPT
2008- 2009
Total Number of NC Public High Schools = 542*
34%
56%
( 358)
Schools
Non-participating
( 184)
Schools
Participating
* The total of 542 public high schools includes 534 public schools, two federal
schools, and six charter schools.
Non- Public High School Participation in NC EMPT
2008- 2009
Total Number of NC Non- Public High Schools = 250
76%
24%
( 59)
Schools
Participating
( 191)
Schools
Non-
Participating
27
Student Demographics:
Sex of Participating Students
for Web- based Testing
2008- 2009
Not Given
3%
( 41)
Male
43%
( 523)
Female
54%
( 655)
Sex of Participating Students
for Both Paper- and- Pencil and Web- based Testing
2008- 2009
Not Given
3%
( 739)
Male
44%
( 9,648)
Female
52%
( 11,295)
Sex of Participating Students
for Paper- and- Pencil Testing
2008- 2009
Not Given
3%
( 697)
Male
45%
( 9,077)
Female
52%
( 10,592)
28
0%
.04%
2%
73%
1%
7%
17%
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
Number of Students
African American or Black
American Indian or Alaskan
Native
Asian or Asian American or
Pacific Islander
White
Hispanic or Latino
Not Specified
Other
Race/ Ethnicity of Participating Students
2008- 2009
29
Grade Level of Participating Students
for Paper- and- Pencil Testing
2008- 2009
Senior
36%
( 7,333)
Junior
38%
( 7,676)
Sophomore
20%
( 4,088)
Freshman
4%
( 783)
Not Given
2%
( 486)
Grade Level of Participating Students
for Web- based Testing
2008- 2009
Senior
45%
( 542)
Junior
29%
( 357)
Sophomore
19%
( 232)
Freshman
3%
( 42)
Not Given
4%
( 46)
Grade Level of Participating Students
for Both Paper- and- Pencil and Web- based Testing
2008- 2009
Senior
37%
( 8,075)
Junior
36%
( 7,912)
Sophomore
20%
( 4,338)
Freshman
4%
( 835)
Not Given
2%
( 532)
30
NC EMPT Placement Levels for Students
Using Paper- and- Pencil Testing
2008- 2009
Level 4
12%
( 2,433)
Level 3
40%
( 8,143)
Level 2
28%
( 5,661)
Level 1
20%
( 4,129)
Level 4 ( highest) scored
25- 32
Level 3 scored 17- 24
Level 2 scored 12- 16
Level 1 scored 0- 11
2008- 2009 Placement Test Results:
NC EMPT Placement Levels for Students
Using Web- based Testing
2008- 2009
Level 4
9%
( 111)
Level 3
32%
Level 2 ( 389)
28%
( 340)
Level 1
31%
( 379)
Level 4 ( highest) scored
25- 32
Level 3 scored 17- 24
Level 2 scored 12- 16
Level 1 scored 0- 11
NC EMPT Placement Levels for Students
Using Both Paper- and- Pencil and Web- based Testing
2008- 2009
Level 4
12%
( 2,570)
Level 3
39%
( 8,560)
Level 2
28%
( 6,018)
Level 1
21%
( 4,534)
Level 4 ( highest) scored
25- 32
Level 3 scored 17- 24
Level 2 scored 12- 16
Level 1 scored 0- 11
31
Placement Level by Grade
2008- 2009
1% 2% 1%
0.5%
4%
15%
10%
7%
3%
13% 11%
10%
3%
9%
5%
3%
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
Level 4 ( highest) Level 3 Level 2 Level 1
Number of Students
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
32
Placement Level by Current Math Course
2008- 2009
2%
0.01%
2%
3%
1%
4%
0.2%
0.04%
1%
12%
11%
7%
0.4%
0.1%
3%
2%
0.03%
4%
10%
10%
3%
0.2%
0.1%
3%
0.4%
0.2%
2%
7%
7%
1%
0.2%
0. 1%
3%
.3%
1%
1%
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Algebra II or Integrated Math 3
Advanced Functions and
Modeling
Advanced Math, or Algebra III, or
Advanced Algebra, or
Trigonometry or Pre- Calculus
Integrated Math 4
Probability, or Statistics, or
Discrete Math
Calculus
Technical Math II
Other
Not currently enrolled in a math
course
Number of Students
Level 4 ( highest) Level 3 Level 2 Level 1
33
9%
11%
12%
15%
17%
21%
6%
5%
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Number of Students
Level 4 ( highest)
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
Placement Level by Sex
for Both Paper- and- Pencil and Web- based Tessting
2008- 2009 Male
Female
9%
10%
12%
15%
18%
21%
6%
5%
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Number of Students
Level 4 ( highest)
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
Placement Level by Sex
for Paper- and- Pencil Testing
2008- 2009 Male
Female
13%
16%
12%
15%
13%
18%
4%
5%
0 100 200 300 400 500
Number of Students
Level 4 ( highest)
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
Placement Level by Sex
for Web- based Testing
2008- 2009 Male
Female
34
Type of Calculator Used
2008- 2009
Scientific calculator
25%
( 5,473)
Graphing Calculator
47%
( 10,160)
Four- function calculator
7%
( 1,485)
None
15%
( 3,289)
35
NC EMPT Score Frequency
for Both Paper- and- Pencil and Web- based Testing, 2008- 2009
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132
Score
Number of Students
Frequency
NC EMPT Score Frequency
for Paper- and- Pencil Testing, 2008- 2009
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132
Score
Number of Students
Frequency
NC EMPT Score Frequency
for Web- based Testing, 2008- 2009
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Score
Number of Students Frequency
36
2008- 2009 Item Analysis
for Both Paper- and- Pencil and Web- based Testing, 2008- 2009
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Question #
Percent Correct
2008- 2009 Item Analysis
for Paper- and- Pencil Testing, 2008- 2009
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Question #
Percent Correct
2008- 2009 Item Analysis
for Web- based Testing, 2008- 2009
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Question #
Percent Correct
37
Question Objective # Correct % Correct
1 convert from decimal to fraction 19348 89%
8 solve formula for variable 17648 81%
19 solve word problem: proportion 17426 80%
13 simplify complex fraction 16550 76%
2 solve linear equation 15806 73%
11 evaluate using laws of expon. 15641 72%
10 use midpoint formula 14809 68%
32 solve word problem: linear func. 14379 66%
24 find eq. of linear function 13429 62%
20 simplify using distributive prop. 13387 62%
18 evaluate function 12771 59%
4 solve word problem: circumference 12452 57%
7 model a linear function 12214 56%
22 evaluate expression 11876 55%
6 find x- intercept of line 11563 53%
9 apply Pythagorean Theorem 11214 52%
30 find angle measure in rt. triangle 11116 51%
3 solve exponential equation 11105 51%
25 solve system of two linear eqs. 11078 51%
26 mult. nos. in scientific notat. 10891 50%
31 recall and then solve formula 10442 48%
16 solve word problem: ratio, % 10156 47%
15 find quadratic function 9801 45%
5 find volume of box 9285 43%
27 solve quadratic equation 9152 42%
17 recognize function given data 7722 36%
23 solve word problem: rt. tri. trig. 7078 33%
14 solve word problem: average 6671 31%
29 find equation of line 6202 29%
28 subtract rational expressions 6026 28%
12 compare numbers 4290 20%
21 solve word problem: % increase 3759 17%
Item Analysis by Decreasing %
for Both Paper- and- Pencil and Web- based Testing, 2008- 2009
38
39
Question Objective # Correct % Correct
1 convert from decimal to fraction 990 81%
25 solve system of two linear eqs. 880 72%
32 solve word problem: linear func. 839 69%
7 model a linear function 829 68%
21 solve word problem: % increase 829 68%
8 solve formula for variable 757 62%
5 find volume of box 741 61%
18 evaluate function 735 60%
20 simplify using distributive prop. 721 59%
13 simplify complex fraction 667 55%
26 mult. nos. in scientific notat. 640 52%
28 subtract rational expressions 626 51%
11 evaluate using laws of expon. 601 49%
10 use midpoint formula 601 49%
3 solve exponential equation 574 47%
12 compare numbers 566 46%
16 solve word problem: ratio, % 559 46%
17 recognize function given data 531 43%
19 solve word problem: proportion 530 43%
27 solve quadratic equation 526 43%
24 find eq. of linear function 500 41%
9 apply Pythagorean Theorem 497 41%
6 find x- intercept of line 474 39%
2 solve linear equation 453 37%
30 find angle measure in rt. triangle 430 35%
23 solve word problem: rt. tri. trig. 428 35%
15 find quadratic function 360 29%
14 solve word problem: average 343 28%
29 find equation of line 340 28%
22 evaluate expression 318 26%
4 solve word problem: circumference 234 19%
31 recall and then solve formula 182 15%
Item Analysis by Decreasing %
for Web- based Testing, 2008- 2009
40
Plans After High School
2008- 2009
4- year university
74%
( 15,974)
2- year college
12%
( 2,620)
trade schools
7%
( 1,623)
military service
1%
( 171)
other
4%
initially attend a 2- year ( 819)
college and then attend
a 4- year college
2%
( 475)
41
Anticipated College Major
2008- 2009
57
118
128
152
242
2756
2137
2002
1905
1894
1539
1023
871
736
627
500
432
358
357
327
309
279
269
260
1945
476
360
203
264
228
2081
1596
1723
1173
1030
1637
1752
756
1048
656
768
645
622
569
497
717
694
487
471
391
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
Business, Management and Marketing
Pre- Medicine, Pre- Veterinary Medicine or Pharmacy
Visual and Performing Arts
Engineering
Nursing
Social and Behavior Sciences
Medical Technologies and Allied H ealth Fields
Biology and Biological Sciences
Security and Prot ective Services
Pre- K and Elementary Education
Humanities
Secondary Education in a Non- Science or Non-
Mathematics Area
Computer Science in a Business Area
Mathematical and Physical Sciences
Computer Science in a Mathematics, Engineering or
Science Area
Parks, Recreation, Leisure and Fitness Studies
Engineering Technologies
Automotive Technology
Archit ecture and Related Services
Agriculture
Family and Consumer Sciences
Middle Grades Education
Secondary Education in a Science and Mathematica
Area
Natural Resources and Conservation
Ethnic, Cultural and Gender Studies
Percentage of Students
First Choice
Second Choice
42
Number of College- Level Math Courses Required
for First College Major
2008- 2009
Not Applicable to Me
1%
( 188)
I Don't Know
70%
( 15,088)
None
432
( 2%)
One Course
3%
( 747) Two or more courses
22%
( 4,783)
43
12%
8%
11%
1%
2%
4%
2%
14%
1%
16%
7%
5%
2%
7%
3%
2%
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Winston Salem State University
Western Carolina University
UNC at Wilmingt on
UNC at Pembroke
UNC at Greensboro
UNC at Charlott e
UNC at Chapel Hill
UNC at Asheville
NC State University
NC Central University
NC A& T State University
Fayetteville State University
Elizabeth City State University
East Carolina University
Appalachian State University
A Community College
First Choice of School Planning to Attend
2008- 2009
44
Placement Level by School Planning to Attend ( 1)
2008- 2009
97
169
171
4
6
26
9
603
37
996
119
69
18
141
61
9
788
781
998
45
79
181
115
1411
151
1617
595
352
117
734
313
112
890
481
728
74
124
273
183
665
77
584
457
354
127
431
220
150
836
306
456
92
119
279
207
331
50
317
331
299
98
259
156
154
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A Community College
Appalachian State University
East Carolina University
Elizabeth City State University
Fayetteville State University
NC A& T State University
NC Central University
NC State University
UNC Asheville
UNC Chapel Hill
UNC Charlotte
UNC Greensboro
UNC Pembroke
UNC Wilmington
Western Carolina University
Winston- Salem State University
Level 4
( highest)
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
45
Placement Level by Schools Planning to Attend ( 2)
2008- 2009
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
A Community College
Appalachian State University
East Carolina University
Elizabeth City State University
Fayetteville State University
NC A& T State University
NC Central University
NC State University
UNC Asheville
UNC Chapel Hill
UNC Charlotte
UNC Greensboro
UNC Pembroke
UNC Wilmington
Western Carolina University
Winston- Salem State University
Level 4 ( highest)
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
46
V. Trends in NC EMPT Data, 1996- 2009
The NC EMPT Program has compiled data from a pilot semester and twelve full years of
testing. Informative trends are already beginning to appear and they are presented in the
following charts and graphs:
NC EMPT Cost Per Student
Spring 1997 $ 7.36 2002- 2003 $ 4.02
1997- 1998 $ 4.40 2003- 2004 $ 4.96
1998- 1999 $ 5.46 2004- 2005 $ 3.79
1999- 2000 $ 4.55 2005- 2006 $ 3.59
2000- 2001 $ 4.24 2006- 2007 $ 3.86
2001- 2002 $ 3.62 2007- 2008 $ 4.07
2008- 2009 $ 7.27
Top Anticipated College Majors
Year Major Students Choosing
Major as First Choice
2002- 2003 Social/ Behavioral Sciences 14%
Engineering 13%
Business/ Administrative Sciences 11%
Pre- Med/ Pre- Vet/ Pharmacy 9%
2003- 2004 Social and Behavioral Sciences 14%
Engineering 13%
Business/ Administrative Sciences 12%
Pre- Med/ Pre- Vet/ Pharmacy 9%
2004- 2005 Social and Behavioral Sciences 14%
Engineering 13%
Business/ Administrative Sciences 12%
Pre- Med/ Pre- Vet/ Pharmacy 9%
2005- 2006 Social and Behavioral Sciences 14%
Business/ Administrative Sciences 14%
Engineering 12%
Pre- Med/ Pre- Vet/ Pharmacy 9%
2006- 2007 Business/ Administrative Sciences 12%
Social and Behavioral Sciences 12%
Engineering 11%
Pre- Med/ Pre- Vet/ Pharmacy 9%
2007- 2008 Business/ Administrative Sciences 13%
Social and Behavioral Sciences 13%
Engineering 12%
Pre- Med/ Pre- Vet/ Pharmacy 9%
2008- 2009 Business, Management, and Marketing 13%
Pre- Med/ Pre- Vet/ Pharmacy 10%
Visual and Performing Arts 9%
Engineering 9%
􀀃 Note 􀀃 that 􀀃 testing 􀀃 during 􀀃 2008 􀍲 2009 􀀃 occurred 􀀃 only 􀀃 during 􀀃 the 􀀃 second 􀀃 half 􀀃 of 􀀃 the 􀀃 school 􀀃 year.
47
Students 􀀃 Participating 􀀃 in 􀀃 NC 􀀃 EMPT
33,833
38,261 38,821
33,549
46,418
43,063
23,476
27,456
41,520 43,714
47,925
27,030
8,195
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
1996-
97
1997-
98
1998-
99
1999-
00
2000-
01
2001-
02
2002-
03
2003-
04
2004-
05
2005-
06
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
Number of Students
High 􀀃 Schools 􀀃 Participating
in 􀀃 NC 􀀃 EMPT
243
243
285
287
288
189
251
66
205
302
303
292
293
0 100 200 300 400 500
1996- 97
1997- 98
1998- 99
1999- 00
2000- 01
2001- 02
2002- 03
2003- 04
2004- 05
2005- 06
2006- 07
2007- 08
2008- 09
Number 􀀃 of 􀀃 Schools
* 􀀃 Note 􀀃 that 􀀃 testing 􀀃 during 􀀃 2008 􀍲 2009 􀀃 occurred 􀀃 only 􀀃 during 􀀃 the 􀀃 second 􀀃 half 􀀃 of 􀀃 the 􀀃 school 􀀃 year.
* ���� Note 􀀃 that 􀀃 testing 􀀃 during 􀀃 2008 􀍲 2009 􀀃 occurred 􀀃 only 􀀃 during 􀀃 the 􀀃 second 􀀃 half 􀀃 of 􀀃 the 􀀃 school 􀀃 year.
48
Grade Level of Participating Students
1996- 2009
50%
30%
40%
10%
20%
Sophomore
Junior
0%
96- 97 97- 98 98- 99 99- 00 00- 01 01- 02 02- 03 03- 04 04- 05 05- 06 06- 07 07- 08 08- 09
Year
Senior
EMPT Level of Participating Students
1996- 2009
50%
20%
30%
40%
0%
10%
96- 97 97- 98 98- 99 99- 00 00- 01 01- 02 02- 03 03- 04 04- 05 05- 06 06- 07 07- 08 08- 09
Year
Level 4 ( highest) Level 3 Level 2 Level 1
Note: A substantially different test with more diverse test questions was given for the first time in 2008- 09.
49
Average Score Out of 32 Questions
for Participants Each Year
1996- 2009
25
Series1
10
15
20
0
5
97- 98
98- 99
99- 00
00- 01
01- 02
02- 03
03- 04
04- 05
05- 06
06- 07
07- 08
08- 09
Note: A substantially different test with more diverse test questions was given for the first time in 2008- 09.
Year
Students Planning to Go to College
After High School Graduation
1996- 2009
80%
90%
40%
50%
60%
70%
4- year College
2- year College
10%
20%
30%
0%
96- 97 97- 98 98- 99 99- 00 00- 01 01- 02 02- 03 03- 04 04- 05 05- 06 06- 07 07- 08 08- 09
Year
50
VI. Evaluation of the 2008- 2009 Year
Feedback from participating teachers is critical to the success of the program and
responses are carefully reviewed and considered. The surveys in this section of the
report were disseminated in early June 2009 to the contact persons of the high schools
involved in either NC EMPT paper- and- pencil or Web- based Option # 2 testing during
the spring of 2009. The surveys were created and distributed via email using Perseus
software. This software was made available to the associate director by the Information
Technology and Computing Services Department of East Carolina University. The
teacher contacts were asked to discuss the survey statements and questions with other
participating math teachers in their departments before completing the survey. With
154 of the surveys returned to our office, 69% of those polled responded. This response
rate is much improved. For example, last year’s response rate was only 44%. In past
years, a paper- and- pencil survey was enclosed with spring testing results rather than the
online survey employed in June 2009.
These responses reassure us that both students and teachers are very satisfied with the
administration, efficiency, value, and wealth of timely information provided by the NC
EMPT Program. It is especially heartening to receive a 96% vote of confidence with
regard to the overall value of the service to high school students and teachers. The NC
EMPT test is not mandatory and the fact that so many teachers voluntarily find room in
their busy math curriculums to employ this early math placement test is a testament to
its value.
Healthy Responses from the Surveys of 2008- 2009 Participating Teachers . . .
􀁸 Question # 3: 93% strongly agreed or agreed that the instructions provided for each teacher
for paper- and- pencil or Web- based testing were clear and easy to follow.
􀁸 Question # 5: 89% strongly agreed or agreed that students were attentive and tested with a
serious attitude.
􀁸 Question # 6: 97% strongly agreed or agreed that the NC EMPT office promptly returned
hard copies of test score summaries for teachers and individualized results letters for
students.
􀁸 Question # 7: 96% strongly agreed or agreed that the test score summary received by each
teacher for each class period was helpful.
􀁸 Question # 8: 93% strongly agreed or agreed that the lime green brochure titled
“ Mathematics Placement Procedures at NC Community Colleges and UNC Constituent
Institutions, 2008- 2009” that was included in each teacher’s results package was useful to
teachers in advising college- bound students.
􀁸 Question # 11: 89% strongly agreed or agreed that students found their individualized results
letters easy to understand and informative.
􀁸 Question # 13: 93% strongly agreed or agreed that the NC EMPT Program accomplished its
goal of providing participating high school students with a “ reality check” of their readiness for
college- level mathematics.
􀁸 Question # 15: 96% strongly agreed or agreed that overall, the NC EMPT Program provides
a valuable service to high school students and teachers.
51
Each year, NC EMPT Advisory Board members who represent NC community colleges
and UNC institutions are asked to update information about their particular schools.
This information is unique to each school and includes calculator usage on actual math
placement tests, beginning required math courses for majors, and descriptions of math
placement procedures. The associate director gathers this information and updates a
brochure titled “ Mathematics Placement Procedures at NC Community Colleges and
UNC Constituent Institutions.” This important brochure is disseminated each year to
each participating teacher and all public and non- public high school principals, math
chairs and counseling departments. According to question # 8 in the above survey, 93%
of the teachers responding found this brochure helpful in advising students. This same
valuable information provided by board members has another important use. It is
imbedded in individual student results letters based on the student’s choice of major
and college/ university.
There is always room for improvement. The survey question receiving the lowest
approval rating was # 2: “ If you registered online ( rather than mailing or faxing the
paper form), the online sign- up form was user- friendly and reliable.” Only 74% of the
respondents answered positively, that is, they strongly agreed or agreed with this
statement. We will restudy the online form and make adjustments in order simplify the
process of completing the form. As far as reliability is concerned, there are inherent
problems with Web servers and so there will be times when completed registration
forms are not received. We also find that despite written reminders, some required
fields of information are not completed by a handful of contact persons and their sign-up
form is therefore not successfully submitted. In both cases, contact persons are
warned to look for a confirmation email that should immediately be received in their
email boxes from the NC EMPT office. If the confirmation is not received, the contact
persons are advised to contact the office as soon as possible.
Survey question # 4 asks respondents if “ test administration took a total of 55 minutes or
less.” The question received a positive response of 79%. Last year, 95% of the teachers
responded positively to this question. These teachers employed the paper- and- pencil
tests only. This 2008- 2009 survey question was directed to all teachers including those
who gave the paper- and- pencil or the Web- based version. Because very few changes
were made in the instructions for the administration of the paper test this year, our
conclusion is that the positive response was lower this year due to technical difficulties
on the part of students or teachers when trying to employ the less familiar online testing
avenue.
Survey question # 10 asks respondents if “ participating teachers took time to review test
errors with students.” The fact that only 64% of the responses were positive is
disheartening. Much additional value to students is derived from reviewing their
mathematical strengths and weaknesses and in discussing the merits of the test results.
However, with stiff competition for valuable instructional time and with one day already
sacrificed for testing, adding a second day to review results is a difficult choice for some
teachers.
A copy of the Perseus survey questions and results follows:
52
Created using Vovici EFM Community
A QUICK Survey of NC EMPT Testing, Spring 2009
Type: Frequency Report
Date: 9/ 26/ 2009
Total number of responses collected: 156
Part A: Carefully read each statement below and respond by checking one box to the right of each statement.
Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree Strongly
Disagree
N/ A or No
Opinion Total Mean Std
Dev
1. The decision to
participate in NC
EMPT testing at
your school is at
the discretion of
each individual
math teacher.
Count 83 31 16 8 5 143 1.748 1.084
% by
Row 58.0% 21.7% 11.2% 5.6% 3.5% 100.0%
2. If you
registered online
( rather than
mailing or faxing
the paper form),
the online sign- up
form was user-friendly
and
reliable.
Count 83 22 0 0 38 143 2.217 1.716
% by
Row 58.0% 15.4% 0.0% 0.0% 26.6% 100.0%
53
Created using Vovici EFM Community
3. The instructions
provided for each
teacher for paper-and-
pencil or Web-based
testing were
clear and easy to
follow.
Count 103 30 1 1 8 143 1.469 0.992
% by
Row 72.0% 21.0% 0.7% 0.7% 5.6% 100.0%
4. Test
administration took
a total of 55
minutes or less.
Count 71 42 20 1 9 143 1.846 1.103
% by
Row 49.7% 29.4% 14.0% 0.7% 6.3% 100.0%
5. Students were
attentive and
tested with a
serious attitude.
Count 51 76 6 0 10 143 1.895 1.012
% by
Row 35.7% 53.1% 4.2% 0.0% 7.0% 100.0%
6. The NC EMPT
office promptly
returned hard
copies of test score
summaries for
teachers and
individualized
results letters for
students.
Count 109 29 0 0 5 143 1.343 0.806
% by
Row 76.2% 20.3% 0.0% 0.0% 3.5% 100.0%
7. The test score
summary received
by each teacher for
each class period
was helpful.
Count 105 33 0 0 5 143 1.371 0.811
54
Created using Vovici EFM Community
% by
Row 73.4% 23.1% 0.0% 0.0% 3.5% 100.0%
8. The lime green
brochure titled
" Mathematics
Placement
Procedures at NC
Community
Colleges and UNC
Constituent
Institutions, 2008-
2009" was included
in each teacher's
results package.
This brochure was
useful to teachers
in advising college-bound
students.
Count 95 38 1 0 9 143 1.531 1.013
% by
Row 66.4% 26.6% 0.7% 0.0% 6.3% 100.0%
9. The NC EMPT
website at
www. ncempt. org is
useful and
informative.
Count 80 37 1 0 25 143 1.972 1.468
% by
Row 55.9% 25.9% 0.7% 0.0% 17.5% 100.0%
10. Participating
teachers took time
to review test
errors with
students.
Count 40 52 22 5 24 143 2.448 1.377
% by
Row 28.0% 36.4% 15.4% 3.5% 16.8% 100.0%
11. Students found
their individualized
results letters easy
to understand and
Count 71 57 1 0 14 143 1.804 1.164
55
Created using Vovici EFM Community
informative.
% by
Row 49.7% 39.9% 0.7% 0.0% 9.8% 100.0%
12. Students found
their NC EMPT
experience helpful
and useful for
future college
plans.
Count 56 63 4 0 20 143 2.056 1.299
% by
Row 39.2% 44.1% 2.8% 0.0% 14.0% 100.0%
13. The NC EMPT
Program
accomplished its
goal of providing
your participating
high school
students with a
" reality check" of
their readiness for
college- level
mathematics.
Count 92 41 1 0 9 143 1.552 1.012
% by
Row 64.3% 28.7% 0.7% 0.0% 6.3% 100.0%
14. The NC EMPT
Program will
accomplish its goal
of helping to
reduce the
percentage of
incoming college
freshmen that
require
mathematics
remediation at the
college level
( consider the
Count 56 64 6 0 17 143 2.007 1.230
56
Created using Vovici EFM Community
seniors from your
high school that
participated in the
program and plan
to attend college in
fall 2009).
% by
Row 39.2% 44.8% 4.2% 0.0% 11.9% 100.0%
15. Overall, the NC
EMPT Program
provides a valuable
service to high
school students
and teachers.
Count 101 36 1 0 5 143 1.406 0.824
% by
Row 70.6% 25.2% 0.7% 0.0% 3.5% 100.0%
Total Count 1196 651 80 15 203 2145 N/ A N/ A
% by
Row 55.8% 30.3% 3.7% 0.7% 9.5% 100.0%
57
# 16. In an effort to update and realign with current college math
placement tests, the 2008- 2009 NC EMPT test questions were
substantially different from those found on earlier versions of the test.
Please comment on the diversity and difficulty of the questions.
Number Comments About Diversity and Difficulty of 2008- 2009 NC EMPT Test Version
50
A good upgrade; I like the improvement in the diversity of the content; questions were
appropriate and a fair measure of college math placement tests; a good sampling of all
the mathematics skills students should have learned throughout high school.
26
My students found the new questions much more difficult than those from previous
years; definitely a harder, but better test; more challenging; the old version was too
predictable and too easy for students completing Algebra II; the typical scores in our
classes were lower than in previous years.
7
I appreciated more “ real- life” word problems; not so mechanical, required some thought
and problem solving; a surprise as students were used to a more objective test format as
opposed to the problem solving format; good change because students need to think
more critically; questions not all process driven – several questions required students to
do an additional step or two and/ or make a decision about what process( es) to apply;
questions were more thought- provoking.
4
Including trig and precalculus questions was an improvement; test questions went
beyond Algebra II and included more college placement topics; many questions were not
aligned with the Algebra II curriculum.
3 Glad to see geometry topics included; students struggled with geometry content because
they didn’t recall the skills.
3 It was a great experience for our students, and for me as a teacher; some students had
their eyes opened on their current readiness; good reality check for many.
3
Not using a calculator on the test increased the difficulty level; without a calculator, most
of my students gave up on taking the test and guessed; I was shocked at how
dependent the students are on a calculator.
2
It is outstanding that NC EMPT stays current with actual math placement tests given on
college campuses across the state; I’m glad that you updated the test to more accurately
reflect college math expectations.
2 The new test was not much different than the old versions; did not pay attention to the
differences.
2 No response from my math teachers.
2 My students commented that they thought the test was easier than the earlier version.
2 This was the first time I’d seen the test so I can’t answer this question.
1 I found the new test more useful for seniors in Discrete Math and chose not to use it as
an Algebra II end- of- course exam readiness test.
1 The change made it a little awkward to compare students’ general scores from those
earned on prior versions of the test.
1 The new test was a close match to the NY State college math placement test.
1 I found out that I do need to do more with percents to help my students review.
1 There seemed to be a greater emphasis on exponential functions.
1 The new test was much more difficult for my students. It made me wonder whether the
old or new test was more closely an indicator of whether students are ready or not.
1 I feel like the real thing is harder, however I do not know what is on the real thing.
1 Please send out another “ Top Ten Missed Questions” sheet because I use these to help
my students prepare.
58
1 The trig questions could be harder.
1 The question that referred to 2/ 3 as .666 confused my calculus students. This may be
because AP Calculus rounds or truncates to the third decimal place.
1 The new test is more realistic for SAT and COMPASS testing, also for the Algebra II
end- of- course test.
1
Some students develop a “ cocky” attitude which does not serve them well. This year’s
students had lower scores and these scores were probably a more realistic portrayal of
their math abilities.
# 17. If you used the NC EMPT Web- based avenue of testing, please tell
us what you liked about it and make any suggestions for improvement.
Number Positive Comments About Web- based Testing
6
Web- based testing was easy to do; convenient; well- designed; with directions in front
of me, the website was easy to use. ( However, if I didn’t have step- by- step directions,
I would never have guessed correctly what to click.)
6 Prompt and immediate reporting of scores; students were able to identify questions
answered incorrectly while the questions were “ fresh” in their minds.
3 The experience of students taking a test online is invaluable as it is a common form of
testing in college.
2 My school has initiated a laptop program. Web- based assessment was a perfect fit
and a great idea.
2 I liked the fact that students could access the test from any site ( home, school, library,
etc.)
1 I liked the fact that students could save each individual answer.
Number Suggestions for Improvement of Web- based Testing
7
There was some confusion among my students about the “ submit” button on individual
questions; the students and I were very confused about which button to push: the one
under each question or the final button at the bottom of the test - the directions were
vague about this; Why can’t there be one “ submit” button at the end of the test with all
answers being saved, but changeable, to that point? You’d need to also provide one
“ save” button for folks that may need to finish their test at a different time.
3 Some students commented that their responses were lost numerous times and that
they had to start all over again several times; this drastically affected their scores.
2
Students taking the test at home had difficulty navigating the WebAssign site. Off
times, the site would freeze and prevent students from entering answers; students
using Apple computers at home had problems.
1
After students click on the “ submit” button, a window should appear that lets them
know that their answers were submitted successfully. There is no way of knowing with
the current software set- up.
1 The WebAssign tech staff was not responsive to e- mail or phone requests for help.
Neither was addressed.
1 The test took longer than 55 minutes for my students who took the test seriously and I
found I had not allocated sufficient computer time in the lab.
59
# 18. What other services or information can the NC EMPT Program
provide you or your students with regard to college math placement
testing?
Number Requests for Other Services or Information
26 None! The information you provide is detailed and wonderful, and the students are
usually amazed; NC EMPT does so much already; keep doing what you’re doing!
7
Your services are greatly appreciated; we appreciate your feedback and the individual
results; we appreciate any help you can give us with regard to college math placement
testing; letting students know expectations in advance and what test results mean is a
valuable tool.
4
I liked the info. about which colleges allow calculators and which did not; it would be
interesting to see which colleges use computerized placement testing and which use
paper- and- pencil; tell us which colleges provide calculators during their placement
testing; provide a list of when colleges do their actual math placement testing.
3
Let’s go back to giving a pretest ( Option# 1) early in each semester, and then a post-test
( Option # 2) at the end of each semester. These two tests have provided me with
insight into which math topics the students need to review and allows the students to
see how much their math skills have improved from the beginning to the end of the
semester.
2 Any additional practice materials ( games, puzzles), frequently missed questions, or old
tests would be very helpful for practice purposes.
1
I think an item analysis ( how many students chose response A, etc.) might be helpful
to see if the majority of the students who got the problem wrong were making a
common mistake.
1 Information about math requirements and placement tests at various colleges needs to
be in every high school guidance office.
1 I had many students attending college out- of- state. It would be useful to have
information about placement testing at colleges and universities not in NC.
1
Some of my students asked if the NC EMPT score could be submitted in place of the
placement test their college would administer. You might want to consider that for
future tests.
1 Offer a test version for Algebra I students that is similar to the PSAT or SAT. I think
more teachers would use the test at lower math levels.
1 Return test copies with answers and student scores for Web- based testing. It’s tough
to review a test if we don’t have copies.
1 Provide some suggestions for students to remediate themselves. Maybe offer some
mini- courses online that students can work through on their own.
1
Your information should include required AP scores at each of the listed universities.
Perhaps you could give web- links for each university where more AP information can
be found.
1 For my students who are thinking about majoring in some math related field, the test
could be more challenging.
1
If a list of covered objectives or a pre- assessment could be given, that would be
helpful; include a list of formulas that students are expected to know ( remember) from
previous courses.
1 Maybe have an online test that students can take on their own time to get feedback.
1 I need to test earlier in the year. The students did not take it seriously.
60
DONE! THANK YOU FOR TAKING TIME TO GIVE US YOUR FEEDBACK!! If
you have any other comments you’d like us to hear, please write them
below.
Number Additional Comments
16
Wonderful program and fantastic service every time; you really make it easy for
teachers to use NC EMPT and it is a great resource for students; thank you very
much; keep up the good work; it is a pleasure to work with the staff at NC EMPT.
5
Ellen Hilgoe’s organization and efficiency are unparalleled! Good job! Thank you,
Ellen, once again for your assistance; Mrs. Hilgoe does a good job in promoting NC
EMPT, giving energy to math teachers, and encouraging them to use the test.
4 I appreciate the service offered to our students; the students find the results very
worthwhile.
3 NC EMPT test results make students realize the importance of taking math their senior
year of high school; this is a great opportunity for our graduating seniors!
2 You guys do a great job; your turnaround time for results is amazing!
2 NC EMPT is a very useful tool in preparing students for college and would be greatly
missed if cancelled.
1 We are glad you are back in operation this fall, especially after not being able to offer
testing last fall.
1
Thank you for providing such an informative service. My students used the testing as
preparation for the Algebra II state mandated end- of- course exam. They were also
extremely interested in the information given about college math and placement tests.
I think it increased the overall motivation going into our final exams. Please make sure
we are included in next year’s testing.
1 My students saved copies of the test to refresh their math skills just prior to their actual
college math placement test.
1 Several of my students from the first semester of block scheduling requested to take
the test again when it was scheduled in the spring.
1 Thanks for the opportunity to increase the size of our order at such a late date.
1
We gave the test without the use of calculators. Our students are so dependent on
them. I think their scores would have been much better if they could have used a
calculator.
1
My students were primarily 10th grade honor students. They did very well on the test
and may think the placement test was not a challenge. They did benefit from the
feedback with regard to the college they were interested in.
1 Thank you for the quick replies, positive attitude, and stickers!
1 Some students chose not to come to school on the day of testing. The others did not
take the test seriously. I think I waited too late to administer it.
1
The only disadvantage of NC EMPT is that we can’t test Algebra II students due to the
jam- packed curriculum. We honestly can’t give up an hour that we need to do our
EOC instruction. So we give the test in Advanced Functions and Modeling and/ or Pre-
Calculus classes where many students are seniors already. I would love to be able to
test all juniors so that they could get the reality check. An online version that students
could take at any time and get instant feedback would be so valuable for juniors in
Algebra II.
61
62