Docstoc

Bridgewater-Raritan Regional

Document Sample
Bridgewater-Raritan Regional Powered By Docstoc
					 New Milford School District




District Testing Report: Analyzing The Data

            Danielle M. Shanley
     Director of Curriculum and Instruction
                October 17, 2011
                   Introduction
 The State of NJ requires LEAs to publically present
 test data, with attention to each subgroup.
 Overview of the 2011 district test results on New
 Jersey standardized tests, with some historical
 analysis.
 Comparison of New Milford schools to State averages
 and districts in similar District Factor Groupings
 (DFG), a measure of average household income and
 educational level, ranked A – I, with A being most
 impoverished and I being most affluent.

 New Milford’s DFG is   an “FG” grouping. Other
 Bergen County FGs include: Edgewater, Fair Lawn,
 Hasbrouck Heights, Fort Lee, Maywood, Midland
 Park, Rutherford and Woodridge.
            Terminology
 NCLB     No Child Left Behind Act
 AYP      Adequate Yearly Progress
 NJASK    New Jersey Assessment of Skills and
           Knowledge
 HSPA     High School Proficiency Assessment
 APA      Alternative Proficiency Assessment
 LEP Limited English Proficient
 SE       Special Education
 AHSA     Alternative High School Assessment
            Good to Know…
 Subgroup = One of 40 groups identified within the
    whole group tested.
   A subgroup must have 30 students (n=30) in it to be
    measured for AYP.
   Common sub groups are Special Education,
    Limited English Proficient, Impoverished, Ethnic,
    Racial groups etc.
   State changed benchmark scores for making
    Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
   Anticipating changed process of evaluation, with
    the focus shifting to growth of “cohorts” instead of
    year to year growth of different groups of students.
          NJ State Benchmarks for
          Adequate Yearly Progress
             (Updated November 2009)

Content       Grade Span         Starting   2005-   *2008-   2011-    2014
Area                              2003      2007     2010    2013
Language      Elementary (Gr.          68    75      59        79     100
Arts (LAL)    3-5)
              Middle (Gr. 6-8)         58    66      72        86     100

              High School (Gr.         73    79      85        92     100
              11)
Math          Elementary (Gr.          53    62      66        83     100
              3-5)
              Middle (Gr. 6-8)         39    49      61        80     100

              High School (Gr.         55    64      74        86     100
              11)


                                                    Notice Increase
             2011 Results: NJASK, Language Arts Literacy
   GRADE          % Partially Prof.   % Proficient   % Advanced Prof.

Grade 3
   Berkley (71)         26.8             62.0              11.3
     Gibbs (91)         29.7             64.8              5.5
           DFG          30.3             62.5              7.2
          STATE         37.0             55.8              7.2
Grade 4
   Berkley (47)         38.3              61.7              0
     Gibbs (90)         31.1             65.6              3.3
           DFG          30.4             62.0              7.6
          STATE         37.3              55.5             7.2
Grade 5
   Berkley (74)         18.9             73.0              8.1
     Gibbs (84)         22.6             69.0              8.3
           DFG          32.2             62.3              5.5
          STATE         39.1             54.8              6.1
            % Prof. + Adv. Prof. NJASK 3 LAL
95
     Berkley         Gibbs          DFG   STATE
90


85


80


75


70


65


60


55


50
     2011                    2010              2009
80
         % Prof. = Adv. Prof. NJASK 4 LAL
     Berkley      Gibbs
75


70   DFG          STATE

65


60


55


50


45


40
           2011           2010       2009
            % Prof. + Adv. Prof. NJASK 5 LAL
95

            Berkley    Gibbs      DFG      STATE
90


85


80


75


70


65


60


55


50
     2011                  2010                2009
Mathematics
            2011 Results : NJASK, Mathematics
          GRADE             % Partially Prof.   % Proficient   % Advanced Prof.
Grade 3
             Berkley (72)         18.1             38.9             43.0
              Gibbs (91)          19.8             52.7             27.5
                    DFG           15.7             42.8             41.6
                  STATE           21.1             40.5             38.4

Grade 4

             Berkley (50)        20.0              48.0             32.0
              Gibbs (90)          15.6             60.0             24.4
                    DFG           16.3             49.8             33.8
                  STATE          20.7              47.2              32.1
Grade 5

             Berkley (76)         11.8             36.8              51.3
              Gibbs (84)          16.7             45.2             32.0
                    DFG           15.3             44.3             40.4
                  STATE           19.4             41.1             39.5
         % Prof. + Adv. Prof. NJASK 3 Math
100


95
       Berkley      Gibbs       DFG      STATE

90


85


80


75


70


65


60


55


50
      2011               2010                2009
         % Prof. = Adv. Prof. NJASK 4 Math
95

     Berkley      Gibbs          DFG   STATE
90


85


80


75


70


65


60


55


50
      2011                2010                 2009
            % Prof. + Adv. Prof. NJASK 5 Math
95

             Berkley    Gibbs          DFG   STATE
90


85


80


75


70


65


60


55


50
     2011                       2010             2009
    2011 Results: NJASK, Language Arts Literacy
                  % Partially                  % Advanced
    GRADE         Proficient    % Proficient    Proficient
Grade 6
  DEOMS (167)        25.7          70.7            3.6
            DFG      27.5          64.9            7.6
          STATE      33.3          59.4            7.3
Grade 7
  DEOMS (179)        21.8          55.9           22.3
            DFG      29.9          57.9           12.2
          STATE      36.7          51.0           12.3
Grade 8
  DEOMS (155)        13.5          73.5           12.9
            DFG      13.0          67.9           19.1
          STATE      17.8          63.0           19.1
        % Prof. + Adv. Prof. NJASK 6 LAL
80

            DEOMS      DFG      STATE
75



70



65



60



55



50
     2011               2010               2009
       % Prof. + Adv. Prof. NJASK 7 LAL
85

            DEOMS      DFG      STATE
80



75



70



65



60



55



50
     2011               2010              2009
            % Prof. + Adv. Prof. NJASK 8 LAL
95
               DEOMS       DFG      STATE
90


85


80


75


70


65


60


55


50
     2011                  2010                2009
Mathematics
          2011 Results : NJASK, Mathematics
                  % Partially                  % Advanced
    GRADE         Proficient    % Proficient    Proficient
Grade 6
    DEOMS (167)      10.2           55.1          34.7
            DFG      19.1           52.0          28.9
          STATE      22.7           49.8          27.6
Grade 7
    DEOMS (179)      26.3           48.6           25.1
            DFG      30.3           45.6          24.1
          STATE      34.3           41.1          24.3
Grade 8
    DEOMS (157)      33.1           45.2          21.7
            DFG      25.6           45.0          29.4
          STATE      28.5           41.1          30.4
       % Prof. + Adv. Prof. NJASK 6 Math
95


90          DEOMS      DFG      STATE

85


80


75


70


65


60


55


50
     2011              2010                2009
        % Prof. + Adv. Prof. NJASK 7 Math
85


            DEOMS      DFG      STATE
80



75



70



65



60



55



50
     2011               2010                2009
            % Prof. + Adv. Prof. NJASK 8 Math
80

                 DEOMS      DFG     STATE
75




70




65




60




55




50
     2011                   2010                2009
 2011 NJASK Sections 4 & 8 - Science
                   % Partially                  % Advanced
   GRADE           Proficient    % Proficient    Proficient
Grade 4

    Berkley (50)      4.0           42.0           54.0
     Gibbs (90)        2.2           43.3          54.4
           DFG         5.4           39.1          55.0
          STATE       10.0           42.3          47.7
Grade 8
  DEOMS (157)         14.6           52.2          33.1
           DFG        13.4           55.8          30.8
          STATE       18.8           51.9          29.3
      % Prof. + Adv Prof. NJASK 4 Science
100
         Berkley   Gibbs      DFG   State


95



90



85



80



75
                       2011
     % Prof. + Adv. Prof. NJASK 8 Science
           DEOMS      DFG     State
95
93
91
89
87
85
83
81
79
77
75

                   2011
2011 Results for BIOLOGY Competencies

              % Partially                  % Advanced
 GRADE        Proficient    % Proficient    Proficient
 NMHS Total
   Students
                 35.2           55.2           9.7
      (165)


                 38.9          44.2           16.9
       DGF

                 42.7          38.0           19.3
      State
     % Prof. + Adv Prof. EOC Biology
75
        NMHS       DFG     STATE
70

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30
                    2011
  State Testing Parameters for HSPA
 Must meet Benchmark score to making

 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
             92% Language Arts
                 86% Math
 Banking of Scores began in 2009

 (w/graduating class of 2010)
 Students have 3 opportunities to “pass” the

 HSPA in addition to AHSA
 SRA changed to more rigorous AHSA process
              2011 Results :
 NJ HSPA, Language Arts Literacy

GRADE 11     % Partially % Proficient % Advanced
             Proficient                Proficient
NMHS (168)      4.2         73.2         22.6

      DFG       7.2         72.8         20.0

     State      10.5        68.8         20.8
            % Prof. + Adv. Prof. HSPA 11 LAL
96
                 NMHS       DFG     STATE
94


92


90


88


86


84


82


80
     2011                  2010                2009
Mathematics
              2011 Results :
        NJ HSPA, Mathematics
GRADE 11     % Partially   % Proficient   % Advanced
             Proficient                    Proficient


NMHS (168)     16.6          60.4           22.6

      DFG      21.3          54.9           23.8

     State     24.8          49.9           25.3
        % Prof. + Adv. Prof. HSPA 11 Math
84
              NMHS      DFG     STATE
82


80


78


76


74


72


70
     2011               2010                2009
           K-12 Program Improvements
•Implemented Connected Math Grades 6 and 7

•Implemented Everyday Math Grade 4

        Intensive Training, New Curriculum, New Textbooks and

        Math Manipulatives

•Added Position - Reading Specialist

•Providing Writers Workshop Intensive Training K-8

•Professional Development for teachers on the

 National Common Core Standards :
  •   English Language Arts
  •   Mathematics
  •   Reading and Writing in the Content Area Classrooms
    K-12 Program Improvements
• Working to REVAMP the ELA program 6-12 to promote

 more thematic and interdisciplinary units based on
 essential questions.
• Socratic Seminar and DBQ Study in Social Studies

• New Science Curriculum K-12

• Study Island

• Junior Academy @DEOMS Courses

• Middle School Schedule Modifications

• Academies@NMHS – Classrooms Without Walls

• 25 New Courses offered at the HS and MS
          Recommendations
•RESEARCH BASED reading, writing, math
and science programs
•EFFECTIVE and meaningful professional
development for all teachers
•Consistency of programs, materials and
teacher training
•Development of common benchmark
assessments
NEVER lose sight of authentic assessments,
opportunities for classrooms without walls
 and the learning that takes place in the
            non-tested areas:
     Arts and Music, Global Studies,
World Language, Technology, Engineering,
       Business, Future Educators,
   Experiential and Service Learning,
                and Civics.
  2011 Alternate Proficiency Assessment
               (APA) Grade 3 Results

                 # Partially                  # Advanced
Students (2)                   # Proficient
                 Proficient                    Proficient
Language Arts
     Literacy                       2
        Math         2
  2011 Alternate Proficiency Assessment
               (APA) Grade 5 Results

                 # Partially                  # Advanced
Students (3)                   # Proficient
                 Proficient                    Proficient
Language Arts
     Literacy        2              1
        Math         1              1             1
  2011 Alternate Proficiency Assessment
               (APA) Grade 7 Results

                 # Partially                  # Advanced
Students (1)                   # Proficient
                 Proficient                    Proficient
Language Arts
     Literacy        1
        Math         1
  2011 Alternate Proficiency Assessment
               (APA) Grade 8 Results

                 # Partially                  # Advanced
Students (1)                   # Proficient
                 Proficient                    Proficient
Language Arts
     Literacy                       1
        Math                        1
     Science                        1
 2011 Alternate Proficiency Assessment
           (APA) Grade 11 Results

                # Partially                  # Advanced
Students (1)                  # Proficient
                Proficient                    Proficient
Language Arts
     Literacy                      1
        Math                                      1
     Science        1
         NCLB
      and Making
Adequate Yearly Progress
         (AYP)
                        Background
 No Child Left Behind Act 2001
   Signed into law on January 8, 2002
   Bi-partisan initiative to increase student achievement
   Developed by politicians, not teachers

 NCLB represented some of the most significant changes to the
  Elementary and Secondary Schools Act (ESEA) since its enactment in
  1965

 NCLB contains four major education reforms:
     ►Increased focus on accountability
     ►Increased flexibility and local control
     ► Expanded educational options for parents, and
     ► Focus on research-based methods and practices
          NCLB UPDATES
     ESEA is up for reauthorization,
   but the “suggested improvements”
are still focused purely on mathematics
and language arts achievement measured
      by standardized tests, with no
recognition of, attention to or funding for
                  the other
           critical content areas.
         Guidelines for Assessing AYP
Goal: All students will be assessed
 95% of each student group must participate in
 the assessment process
 Students enrolled for <1 year will not be
 included in the accountability process
 Students with severe disabilities must be
 assessed utilizing the APA
 Out-of-district students are included in their
 home schools’ accountability (we don’t educate
 these children)
 LEP students must also be assessed
        Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Student progress is also assessed by student
  sub-groups:
 Ethnicity: American Indian, Asian, Black,
 Hispanic, Pacific Islander, White, Other
 Income: Economically Disadvantaged/Non-
 Economically Disadvantaged
 LEP: Limited English Proficient
 Special Education
          How to “MAKE” AYP
    1. Meet the participation expectation of 95%

                        AND
 2. Meet the Proficiency Benchmarks in each of the
       subgroup, in each of the content areas
       (40 out of 40 sub categories in total)

                           OR
3. Meet Calculations for Safe Harbor = 10% reduction
        in Partial Proficiency from the prior year
New Jersey State Benchmarks for Adequate
            Yearly Progress 3-5

Content Area    Grade Span           Starting   2011-   2014
                                      Point     2013
                                      2003

Language        Elementary (Grades     68        79     100
Arts Literacy   3-5)

Mathematics     Elementary (Grades     53        83     100
                3-5)
                      NJ Department of Education
            Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Status Under the
               NCLB Accountability Requirements: 2011
    Berkley Street        95% Participation    Made AYP     Made Safe
                               Rate            Benchmark     Harbor
       School
                          LAL         MA      LAL    MA    LAL    MA
(40/40 indicators met)

Total Population           Yes        Yes     Yes    Yes
Students w/Disabilities    Yes        Yes     No      No   Yes    Yes

Limited Eng Prof.

White                      Yes        Yes     Yes    Yes
African American
Asian/Pacif. Islander      Yes        Yes     Yes    Yes
Hispanic                   Yes        Yes     Yes    Yes
Economically
Disadvantaged
                        NJ Department of Education
              Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Status Under the
                 NCLB Accountability Requirements: 2011
  Gibbs Elementary        95% Participation    Made AYP     Made Safe
                               Rate            Benchmark     Harbor
       School
 (40/40 indicators met)   LAL         MA      LAL    MA    LAL     MA

Total Population          Yes         Yes     Yes    Yes

Students w/Disabilities   Yes         Yes     No     Yes   Yes

Limited Eng Prof.

White                     Yes         Yes     Yes    Yes
African American
Asian/Pacif. Islander     Yes         Yes     Yes    Yes
Hispanic
Economically
Disadvantaged
New Jersey State Benchmarks for Adequate
            Yearly Progress 6-8
Content Area    Grade Span      Starting   2011-   2014
                                 Point     2013
                                 2003

Language        Middle School     58        86     100
Arts Literacy   (Grades 6-8)

Mathematics     Middle School     39        80     100
                (Grades 6-8)
                       NJ Department of Education
             Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Status Under the
                NCLB Accountability Requirements: 2011

   David E Owens          95% Participation    Made AYP         Made Safe
                               Rate            Benchmark         Harbor
   Middle School
 (40/40 indicators met)   LAL         MA      LAL     MA    LAL        MA
Total Population          Yes         Yes     No      Yes      Yes
Students w/Disabilities   Yes         Yes     No      No       Yes     Yes


Limited Eng Prof.

White                     Yes         Yes     No      Yes      Yes
African American
Asian/Pacif. Islander     Yes         Yes     Yes     Yes
Hispanic                  Yes         Yes     Yes     Yes
Econom. Disadvantaged     Yes         Yes     No      No       Yes     Yes
New Jersey State Benchmarks for Adequate
            Yearly Progress 11
Content Area    Grade Span           Starting   2011-   2014
                                      Point     2013
                                      2003

Language        High School (Grade     73        92     100
Arts Literacy   11)

Mathematics     High School (Grade     55        86     100
                11)
                     NJ Department of Education
           Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Status Under the
              NCLB Accountability Requirements: 2011
     High School        95% Participation  Made AYP          Made Safe
                                Rate          Benchmark       Harbor

 (40/40 indicators met)   LAL          MA    LAL    MA    LAL      MA

Total Population          Yes          Yes   Yes    Yes

Students w/Disabilities


Limited Eng Prof.

White                     Yes          Yes   Yes    Yes
African American
Asian/Pacif. Islander                        Yes    Yes
Hispanic
Econ. Disadvantaged
 ALL FOUR SCHOOLS
     IN New Milford
         Made AYP

But we will not become complacent!
       S.M.A.R.T. Goals

       for all schools &

PLCs focused on Learning and
Improved professional practices
 Activities to Promote Progress:
Vertical articulation and review of data
 with teachers and administration
Analysis of test data by subgroup, with
 recommendations and follow through
 on individual instructional decisions
Systematic staff development to
 increase teachers’ understanding of
 test format and response construction
District-wide implementation of
 Professional Learning Communities to
 increase student achievement.
         Thank you!



          Danielle M. Shanley
Director of Curriculum and Instruction

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:8/12/2012
language:English
pages:69