1 / 174

Six Year Plan Second Quarter 2012-13

Six Year Plan Second Quarter 2012-13. Second Quarter Report 2012.

debra
Download Presentation

Six Year Plan Second Quarter 2012-13

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Six Year Plan Second Quarter 2012-13

  2. Second Quarter Report 2012 In the fall of 2009, the Mount Olive Township Public Schools adopted a six year plan that was intended to drive student academic achievement, organize schools for success, re-equip faculty, staff, and students with sophisticated learning tools, promote an expanded partnership with parents, and implement enriching teaching methodologies that motivate. During the second quarter of the fourth year of this plan, the district continued improving its academic programs by extending learning time through the district’s new IMAGINE after school program and expanding the use of the innovative Compass Learning software system. The second quarter activities also included the idea of “personalizing” instruction through ever-increasingly sophisticated technological tools . Personalization efforts included the implementation of a BYOT (Bring Your Own Technology) program for 8th and 9th grade students (where students bring their own computing devices to school for use in their classes. In addition, the MindPlay software system was initiated in all elementary schools. Mindplay promotes strong reading and language development among early readers. As a result of such efforts, we have noted progress toward our broad improvement goals. Much of the progress is reported through each school’s individual second quarter report (posted on each school’s website) and through individual teacher SMART goals. An overview summary of some of this progress follows:

  3. Mount Olive High School • Second Quarter Improvement Actions: • Implemented a schedule that provides for the establishment of Professional Learning Communities within the constraints of the normal contract day. During the second quarter 90 + PLC meetings were conducted to develop quarterly exams and analyze student performance. Monday afternoons have also been dedicated to PLC time. • Students requiring remediation in Language Arts and Math have been scheduled for Math Workshop and Language Arts Workshop. • HSPA Press Extended Year Program involves nearly 80 students who are at risk of failing the HSPA for Math intensive review and preparation. • Implemented the use of the Scholastic Reading Inventory to establish a set of baseline data that all future observations may be measured against for identified students • Staff trained in the use of a multitude of technologies – BYOT, SMARTboards, STAM, Sharp, Class Link, Compass Learning, and encouraged to use at least once per week – Tech Days

  4. Mount Olive High School • Second Quarter Improvement Actions : • Utilized Compass Learning for remedial use and reinforcement for at-risk students and regular education students in Math and Language Arts. • Implemented the use of the Scholastic Reading Inventory to establish a set of baseline data that all future observations may be measured against for identified students • Continued use of PowerGrade e-alerts to inform parents of grades recorded lower than a 70% • Installed cable access for broadcast of school/district information – MOTV morning announcements and programming are broadcast live to our community via Cablevision and FIOS. Bulletins are posted around the clock. • Started a Principal’s Twitter account to broadcast good news items and updates.

  5. Mount Olive Middle School Second Quarter Improvement Actions • In March 2013, Susan Miranda and Kevin Stansberry met with 25-30 eighth grade students and their parents in order to discuss the possibility of retention in 8th grade due to poor grades. • The principals informed students and parents of their expectations for achievement and what it would take to pass 8th grade. All students will be seen again in three weeks with Mr. Einreinhofer and Susan Miranda in order to review progress and discuss any concerns about their student achievement. • Learning lab for students who are partially proficient receive individualized instruction during 3R’s to work on their Compass learning path. At this time, 271 students are being serviced through 3Rs in order to bring their skill level up in ELA and Math. • In addition students are working through on their learning paths. Students work with their regular education teacher to graph their progress. • ELA, Special Ed and Math teachers, Chris Reagan and Susan Miranda meet on a monthly basis to review student progress, specifically students who are in our at-risk groups in order to consider additional opportunities for students who are not working to their potential

  6. Mount Olive Middle School Second Quarter Improvement Actions • Data for Compass in ELA shows that Grade 6 led the school in overall average achievement score of 85, completing over 5700 learning/assessment activities. Grade 7 performed well with an average achievement score of 80, completing 3500 learning/assessment activities in the reporting period. • Grade 8 logged the most minutes on task at just over 56,000 minutes and 5500 learning/assess • Powerschool quarterly reports are run to determine students who are not passing. Counselors and CST personnel work with the students who are failing in order to assist them with strategies to improve grades • SMART GOALS were developed for 2012-2013 all grade levels/departmental areas. • Data was used to identify areas of weakness. Elective areas used reading/writing initiatives to develop SMART goals. • PLC’s actively work on implementing SMART goals and track student progress in targeted areas. • PLC’s actively are working on developing quarterly assessments and common planning in order to ensure consistency among core academic teachers.

  7. CMS Second Quarter Improvement Actions • Before school SWAT team has continued to work with 3, 4, & 5th grade students for the arrival 10 minutes on multiplication facts • Started a before school program three days a week for 4th graders that are weak in reading using Mind Play • After school, Imagine program had an increase of students adding the 3rd graders to have a total of 80 students • Developed school wide vocabulary focus • Instituted our school wide reading home program to read 1,100 minutes in 8 weeks • Administered third SRI assessment to grades 2-5 • Teachers worked closely with Writer’s Workshop leaders on writing components for the ASK testing • 5th Grade started Battle of the Books • Infusion of tablets into the second and third grade classes

  8. CMS Second Quarter Improvement Actions • Instituted a Tech Day in every grade level • Compass program to be used in every classroom • Mind Play being used with students with weak reading skills • In-serviced staff on Compass and Mind Play • Second Grade staff individually in serviced with their class on Mind Play • All teachers working on their individual class smart goals

  9. Sandshore Second Quarter Improvement Actions • Moved Reading Practice back to first period for grades 3-5 • Implemented math facts in grades 3-5 • Implemented Daily 5 in second grade during reading practice • Daily 5 protocol turned-keyed to staff members by second grade team • Allowed choice of books during reading practice in 2nd grade and grades 3-5 commencing second rotation, 1st grade commenced third rotation • Implemented Daily 5 in grades 3-5 during reading practice for second rotation, 1st grade during third rotation • Designed new Running Records report identifying strengths/weaknesses • Administered Second Expository Essay – scored using state rubric – compared results • Designed Expository Essay report identifying strengths/weaknesses • Administered third SRI assessment grades 2-5 • Administered first SRI assessment to 1st grade

  10. Sandshore Second Quarter Improvement Actions • Developed more of a school wide vocabulary focus • Staff analyzed Link-it data and SRI data during PLCs • Staff developed SMART Goals based on Link-it data • Utilized CQ’s during reading comprehension and independent guided reading time grades 3-5 • Moved 4th Grade CQ’s into third grade • Special Ed teachers utilized Compass Learning to address individual weaknesses. Compass Learning integrated into regular ed. classes • Implemented Imagine program after school • Implemented Study Island across grades 2-5 • Infused tablets into grades 1-3 • Implemented AM tutoring utilizing Mindplay • Eliminated SCR during reading practice • Staff following new Writer’s Workshop outline • Thematic novels no longer read as a class – segmented for more direct instruction • Program designed to address the reading of twenty-five additional books • “Readcycle” “Snowcabulary” “Battle of the Books” “Great Adventure Program”

  11. Mountain View Second Quarter Improvement Actions • First Graders learned to read the Primer List of DolchWords. In addition to reading the 52 Primer Dolch Word List, the students were asked to spell the 52 Primer words. • Students use Dolch words in sentence writing homework; in a Dice/Roll center were words are copied and put into sentences; through “rainbow” writing words; through activities such as a Dolchball toss- copy word you catch and put into sentences, etc. • Students were assessed at the beginning of the year on their ability to identify uppercase letters. Students were assessed again in January, 2013 using the same procedures. By January, almost all students knew their letters. • Students will work with the PAWS for reading program. • New reading initiative with students- 25 books on Lexile level for the year per student. • Students practice A to Z fluency activities in the classroom. • Students complete Anchor Activities in the classroom. • New Vocabulary program within the classroom.

  12. New Jersey Report Cards The New Jersey Department of Education compares each Mount Olive school with other New Jersey schools with similar demographic characteristics. The comparisons are designed to assist parents, students, faculty, and staff evaluate the school’s relative progress against other similar schools. The primary points of comparison are related to family income (the percentage of students receiving free or reduced lunch meals), limited language capabilities (LEP percentages in each school), and the percentage of students within a school with handicapping conditions that require special education. Within a certain demographic range, each Mount Olive school is assigned a “peer” comparison group. Each peer school’s results are compared to determine whether the school is progressing better or worse than the average school among the peers. High poverty, LEP, and special education schools are compared to other similar schools with respect to student performance on the state NJASK and HSPA exams. The same is true with every demographic band among all schools in New Jersey. The set of peer schools for the 2012 NJASK results follows.

  13. Mountain View Elementary Peer Schools Listed by County, District, then school name BERGEN BERGENFIELD BORO FRANKLIN ; BERGEN MAHWAH TWP JOYCE KILMER ; BERGEN NEW MILFORD BORO BERKLEY ST; BERGEN NEW MILFORD BORO BERTRAM F GIBBS; BERGEN SADDLE BROOK TWP LONG MEMORIAL; BERGEN WESTWOOD REGIONAL BERKELEY AVE; BURLINGTON BORDENTOWN REGIONAL MAC FARLAND INTERMEDIATE; BURLINGTON MOUNT LAUREL TWP PARKWAY; GLOUCESTER EAST GREENWICH TWP SAMUEL MICKLE SCHOOL; GLOUCESTER WASHINGTON TWP BIRCHES; GLOUCESTER WASHINGTON TWP WHITMAN; HUNTERDON HIGH BRIDGE BORO HIGH BRIDGE ELEM; MERCER HAMILTON TWP UNI HTS HOWARD D MORRISON; MERCER LAWRENCE TWP ELDRIDGE PARK SCHOOL; MERCER PRINCETON REGIONAL JOHNSON PARK SCHOOL; MIDDLESEX EDISON TWP WASHINGTON; MIDDLESEX SOUTH BRUNSWICK TWP BROOKS CROSSING ELEM SCH; MONMOUTH HOWELL TWP ALDRICH; MONMOUTH MIDDLETOWN TWP BAYVIEW; MORRIS JEFFERSON TWP ARTHUR STANLICK; MORRIS MOUNT OLIVE TWP CHESTER M STEPHENS SCHOOL; MORRIS MOUNT OLIVE TWP MOUNTAIN VIEW; PARSIPPANY-TROY HILLSTWP MORRIS; OCEAN POINT PLEASANT BORO NELLIE F BENNETT ELEM SCH; PASSAIC POMPTON LAKES BORO LINCOLN; PASSAIC WEST MILFORD TWP UPPER GREENWOOD LAKE; SOMERSET HILLSBOROUGH TWP SUNNYMEAD; SUSSEX VERNON TWP CEDAR MOUNTAIN SCHOOL; UNION ROSELLE PARK BORO SHERMAN; WARREN BELVIDERE TOWN THIRD STREET; WARREN WASHINGTON TWP PORT COLDEN

  14. Tinc Road Elementary Peer Schools Listed by County, District, then school name BERGEN HASBROUCK HEIGHTS BORO LINCOLN; BURLINGTON DELRAN TWP DELRAN INTERMEDIATE SCH; BURLINGTON MOUNT LAUREL TWP HILLSIDE; CAMDEN HADDON TWP STOY; CAMDEN VOORHEES TWP OSAGE; ESSEX BLOOMFIELD TWP DEMAREST; ESSEX MONTCLAIR TOWN NORTHEAST; GLOUCESTER SWEDESBORO-WOOLWICH GEN CHARLES G HARKER SCH; MERCER HAMILTON TWP MORGAN; MIDDLESEX EAST BRUNSWICK TWP LAWRENCE BROOK; MIDDLESEX EDISON TWP LINCOLN; MIDDLESEX EDISON TWP MENLO PARK; MIDDLESEX OLD BRIDGE TWP JAMES MC DIVITT ELEM ; WP CONSTABLE; MIDDLESEX SOUTH PLAINFIELD BORO JOHN F KENNEDY; MIDDLESEX WOODBRIDGE TWP KENNEDY PARK; MONMOUTH HOWELL TWP EDITH M GRIEBLING; MANALAPAN-ENGLISHTOW; N REG MONMOUTH; MATAWAN-ABERDEEN STRATHMORE KG-03; ; MONMOUTH; MONMOUTH MIDDLETOWN TWP HARMONY; MONMOUTH TINTON FALLS SWIMMING RIVER; ; MORRIS BOONTON TOWN SCHOOL ST; MORRIS MOUNT OLIVE TWP TINC ROAD ; MORRIS ROCKAWAY TWP DENNIS B O BRIEN SCH; MORRIS ROXBURY TWP NIXON; OCEAN BARNEGAT TWP JOSEPH T DONAHUE ELEM; OCEAN PLUMSTED TWP NEW EGYPT ELEM SCH; OCEAN POINT PLEASANT BORO OCEAN ROAD ELEM ; RIDGEWATER-RARITAN JOHN F KENNEDY KG-04; SOMERSET SUSSEX STILLWATER TWP STILLWATER TWP; UNION UNION TWP WASHINGTON

  15. SandshoreElementaryPeer Schools Listed by County, District, then school name BURLINGTON EVESHAM TWP J HAROLD VAN ZANT; BURLINGTON EVESHAM TWP RICHARD L RICE SCHOOL; BURLINGTON MANSFIELD TWP MANSFIELD TWP ELEM SCH; BURLINGTON MEDFORD TWP MILTON H ALLEN; BURLINGTON MOORESTOWN TWP GEORGE C BAKER; BURLINGTON SPRINGFIELD TWP SPRINGFIELD TWP; CAMDEN CHERRY HILL TWP A RUSSELL KNIGHT; ESSEX BLOOMFIELD TWP OAK VIEW; CALDWELL-WEST LINCOLN KG-05; CALDWELL ESSEX SOUTH MOUNTAIN ANNEX; ORANGE-MAPLEWOOD ESSEX; GLOUCESTER HARRISON TWP HARRISON TOWNSHIP; MERCER HAMILTON TWP YARDVILLE; MIDDLESEX EDISON TWP JAMES MADISON INTER; MIDDLESEX OLD BRIDGE TWP M SCOTT CARPENTER MIDDLESEX WOODBRIDGE TWP OAK RIDGE HEIGHTS; MONMOUTH FREEHOLD TWP C RICHARD APPLEGATE; MONMOUTH FREEHOLD TWP MARSHALL W ERRICKSON; MONMOUTH FREEHOLD TWP WEST FREEHOLD; MONMOUTH HAZLET TWP RARITAN VALLEY SCHOOL; MONMOUTH MIDDLETOWN TWP FAIRVIEW ; MONMOUTH MIDDLETOWN TWP NEW MONMOUTH; MORRIS JEFFERSON TWP WHITE ROCK ; MORRIS MOUNT OLIVE TWP SANDSHORE ROAD; MORRIS ROCKAWAY TWP KATHERINE D MALONE; OCEAN JACKSON TWP ELMS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL; PASSAIC WAYNE TWP RANDALL CARTER 31-5570-135; PASSAIC WEST MILFORD TWP MAPLE ROAD; SUSSEX FREDON TWP FREDON TWP; SCOTCH PLAINS-FANWOOD HOWARD B BRUNNER PK-04; UNION SPRINGFIELD TWP THELMA L SANDMEIER; WARREN FRANKLIN TWP FRANKLIN TWP

  16. CMS Elementary Peer Schools Listed by County, District, then school name BERGEN MAHWAH TWP JOYCE KILMER; BERGEN NEW MILFORD BORO BERKLEY ST; BERGEN NEW MILFORD BORO BERTRAM F GIBBS; BERGEN SADDLE BROOK TWP LONG MEMORIAL; BERGEN WESTWOOD REGIONAL BERKELEY AVE ; BURLINGTON BORDENTOWN REGIONAL MAC FARLAND INTERMEDIATE; BURLINGTON LUMBERTON TWP ASHBROOK ELEM SCH; CAPE MAY UPPER TWP UPPER TOWNSHIP ELEM; GLOUCESTER EAST GREENWICH TWP SAMUEL MICKLE SCHOOL; GLOUCESTER WASHINGTON TWP BIRCHES 1; GLOUCESTER WASHINGTON TWP WHITMAN; HUNTERDON HIGH BRIDGE BORO HIGH BRIDGE ELEM ; MERCER HAMILTON TWP UNI HTS HOWARD D MORRISON; MERCER LAWRENCE TWP ELDRIDGE PARK SCHOOL ; MERCER PRINCETON REGIONAL JOHNSON PARK SCHOOL ; MIDDLESEX EDISON TWP WASHINGTON ; MIDDLESEX SOUTH BRUNSWICK TWP BROOKS CROSSING ELEM SCH ; MONMOUTH HOWELL TWP ALDRICH ; MONMOUTH MIDDLETOWN TWP BAYVIEW ; MORRIS JEFFERSON TWP ARTHUR STANLICK ; MORRIS MOUNT OLIVE TWP CHESTER M STEPHENS SCHOOL ; MORRIS MOUNT OLIVE TWP MOUNTAIN VIEW ; PARSIPPANY-TROY HILLS LAKE HIAWATHA SCHOOL PK-05; OCEAN POINT PLEASANT BORO NELLIE F BENNETT ELEM SCH; PASSAIC BLOOMINGDALE BORO SAMUEL R DONALD ; PASSAIC POMPTON LAKES BORO LINCOLN 31-4230-070 ; SOMERSET HILLSBOROUGH TWP SUNNYMEAD ; SUSSEX VERNON TWP CEDAR MOUNTAIN SCHOOL ; UNION ROSELLE PARK BORO SHERMAN ; WARREN BELVIDERE TOWN THIRD STREET ; WARREN WASHINGTON TWP PORT COLDEN

  17. MOMSPeer Schools Listed by County, District, then school name BURLINGTON EASTAMPTON TWP EASTAMPTON COMMUNITY SCH; BURLINGTON MOUNT LAUREL TWP T E HARRINGTON MIDDLE; CAMDEN STRATFORD BORO SAMUEL S YELLIN; RENAISSANCE REGIONAL LEADERSHIP CS; RENAISSANCE REGIONAL KG-08; LEADERSHIP CS CHARTERS; ESSEX MONTCLAIR TOWN GLENFIELD MIDDLE; GLOUCESTER WASHINGTON TWP ORCHARD VALLEY MIDDLE; GLOUCESTER WEST DEPTFORD TWP WEST DEPTFORD MIDDLE ; HUNTERDON BLOOMSBURY BORO BLOOMSBURY BOROUGH; HUNTERDON FLEMINGTON-RARITAN REG J P CASE MIDDLE SCHOOL; MIDDLESEX METUCHEN BORO EDGAR; MIDDLESEX SPOTSWOOD BORO SPOTSWOOD MEMORIAL SCHOOL; MIDDLESEX WOODBRIDGE TWP COLONIA MIDDLE ; MONMOUTH FARMINGDALE BORO FARMINGDALE ELEMENTARY; MONMOUTH TINTON FALLS TINTON FALLS; MORRIS MOUNT OLIVE TWP MT OLIVE MIDDLE SCHOOL; MORRIS ROXBURY TWP EISENHOWER MIDDLE; OCEAN PLUMSTED TWP NEW EGYPT MIDDLE SCH; OCEAN SOUTHERN REGIONAL SOUTHERN REG MIDDLE 2; OCEAN TOMS RIVER REGIONAL TOMS RIVER INTERMEDIATE E; OCEAN TOMS RIVER REGIONAL TOMS RIVER INTERMEDIATE S; SALEM PENNSVILLE PENNSVILLE MIDDLE; SUSSEX HAMBURG BORO HAMBURG; SUSSEX STANHOPE BORO VALLEY ROAD SCHOOL; SUSSEX VERNON TWP GLEN MEADOW; UNION SPRINGFIELD TWP FLORENCE M GAUDINEER; WARREN HACKETTSTOWN HACKETTSTOWNMIDDLE; WARREN HOPE TWP HOPE TWP; WARREN OXFORD TWP OXFORD CENTRAL; WARREN WARREN HILLS REGIONAL WARREN HILLS REG MIDD SCH;

  18. MOHSPeer Schools Listed by County, District, then school name BERGEN HASBROUCK HEIGHTS BORO HASBROUCK HEIGHTS HIGH; BERGEN LYNDHURST TWP LYNDHURST HIGH; BERGEN NORTH ARLINGTON BORO NORTH ARLINGTON HIGH; BERGEN WOOD-RIDGE BORO WOOD RIDGE HIGH; BURLINGTON BURLINGTON TWP BURLINGTON TWP HIGH; RANCOCAS VALLEY RANCOCAS VALLEY REG H 09-12; REGIONAL BURLINGTON BLACK HORSE PIKE HIGHLAND HIGH 09-12; REGIONAL CAMDEN; BLACK HORSE PIKE TIMBER CREEK HIGH 09-12; REGIONAL CAMDEN; CAMDEN CHERRY HILL TWP CHERRY HILL HIGH WEST; CAMDEN HADDON HEIGHTS BORO HADDON HEIGHTS JR SR HS; CAMDEN HADDON TWP HADDON TWP HIGH; GLOUCESTER DELSEA REGIONAL H.S DIST. DELSEA REGIONAL HIGH SCH; GLOUCESTER WEST DEPTFORD TWP WEST DEPTFORD HIGH; MIDDLESEX SPOTSWOOD BORO SPOTSWOOD HIGH; MONMOUTH MANASQUAN BORO MANASQUAN HIGH; MONMOUTH MONMOUTH REGIONAL MONMOUTH REG HIGH; MORRIS BUTLER BORO BUTLER HIGH; MORRIS MOUNT OLIVE TWP MT OLIVE HIGH; OCEAN BARNEGAT TWP BARNEGAT HIGH SCHOOL; OCEAN JACKSON TWP JACKSON LIBERTY HIGH; OCEAN LACEY TWP LACEY TWP HIGH; OCEAN TOMS RIVER REGIONAL TOMS RIVER HIGH EAST; OCEAN TOMS RIVER REGIONAL TOMS RIVER HIGH NORTH ; OCEAN TOMS RIVER REGIONAL TOMS RIVER HIGH SOUTH; PASSAIC POMPTON LAKES BORO POMPTON LAKES HIGH; WOODSTOWN-PILESGROVE WOODSTOWN HIGH 09-12; REG SALEM; SOMERSET SOMERVILLE BORO SOMERVILLE HIGH; SUSSEX NEWTON TOWN NEWTON HIGH; UNION SUMMIT CITY SUMMIT SR HIGH; WARREN HACKETTSTOWN HACKETTSTOWNHIGH; WARREN WARREN HILLS REGIONAL WARREN HILLS REG HIGH SCH

  19. New Jersey Report Cards The New Jersey Department of Education compares each Mount Olive school with other New Jersey schools with similar demographic characteristics. The comparisons are designed to assist parents, students, faculty, and staff evaluate the school’s relative progress against other similar schools. The primary points of comparison are related to family income (the percentage of students receiving free or reduced lunch meals), limited language capabilities (LEP percentages in each school), and the percentage of students within a school with handicapping conditions that require special education. Within a certain demographic range, each Mount Olive school is assigned a “peer” comparison group. Each peer school’s results are compared to determine whether the school is progressing better or worse than the average school among the peers. High poverty, LEP, and special education schools are compared to other similar schools with respect to student performance on the state NJASK and HSPA exams. The same is true with every demographic band among all schools in New Jersey. The set of peer schools for the 2012 NJASK results follows.

  20. New Jersey Report Cards The New Jersey Department of Education compares each Mount Olive school with other New Jersey schools with similar demographic characteristics. The comparisons are designed to assist parents, students, faculty, and staff evaluate the school’s relative progress against other similar schools. The primary points of comparison are related to family income (the percentage of students receiving free or reduced lunch meals), limited language capabilities (LEP percentages in each school), and the percentage of students within a school with handicapping conditions that require special education. Within a certain demographic range, each Mount Olive school is assigned a “peer” comparison group. Each peer school’s results are compared to determine whether the school is progressing better or worse than the average school among the peers. High poverty, LEP, and special education schools are compared to other similar schools with respect to student performance on the state NJASK and HSPA exams. The same is true with every demographic band among all schools in New Jersey. The set of peer schools for the 2012 NJASK results follows.

  21. New Jersey Report Cards The New Jersey Department of Education compares each Mount Olive school with other New Jersey schools with similar demographic characteristics. The comparisons are designed to assist parents, students, faculty, and staff evaluate the school’s relative progress against other similar schools. The primary points of comparison are related to family income (the percentage of students receiving free or reduced lunch meals), limited language capabilities (LEP percentages in each school), and the percentage of students within a school with handicapping conditions that require special education. Within a certain demographic range, each Mount Olive school is assigned a “peer” comparison group. Each peer school’s results are compared to determine whether the school is progressing better or worse than the average school among the peers. High poverty, LEP, and special education schools are compared to other similar schools with respect to student performance on the state NJASK and HSPA exams. The same is true with every demographic band among all schools in New Jersey. The set of peer schools for the 2012 NJASK results follows.

  22. New Jersey Report Cards The New Jersey Department of Education compares each Mount Olive school with other New Jersey schools with similar demographic characteristics. The comparisons are designed to assist parents, students, faculty, and staff evaluate the school’s relative progress against other similar schools. The primary points of comparison are related to family income (the percentage of students receiving free or reduced lunch meals), limited language capabilities (LEP percentages in each school), and the percentage of students within a school with handicapping conditions that require special education. Within a certain demographic range, each Mount Olive school is assigned a “peer” comparison group. Each peer school’s results are compared to determine whether the school is progressing better or worse than the average school among the peers. High poverty, LEP, and special education schools are compared to other similar schools with respect to student performance on the state NJASK and HSPA exams. The same is true with every demographic band among all schools in New Jersey. The set of peer schools for the 2012 NJASK results follows.

  23. New Jersey Report Cards The New Jersey Department of Education compares each Mount Olive school with other New Jersey schools with similar demographic characteristics. The comparisons are designed to assist parents, students, faculty, and staff evaluate the school’s relative progress against other similar schools. The primary points of comparison are related to family income (the percentage of students receiving free or reduced lunch meals), limited language capabilities (LEP percentages in each school), and the percentage of students within a school with handicapping conditions that require special education. Within a certain demographic range, each Mount Olive school is assigned a “peer” comparison group. Each peer school’s results are compared to determine whether the school is progressing better or worse than the average school among the peers. High poverty, LEP, and special education schools are compared to other similar schools with respect to student performance on the state NJASK and HSPA exams. The same is true with every demographic band among all schools in New Jersey. The set of peer schools for the 2012 NJASK results follows.

  24. Peer Rankings Mean score of our peer schools

  25. Student Growth By Grade

  26. Students At-Risk

  27. Reading Comprehension in the Mount Olive schools Compared to the beginning of the year, students in Mount Olive are reading with much more comprehension. Second grade students made the greatest gains in comprehension. At the beginning of the 2012 school year almost 35% of Mount Olive students scored in the “Below Basic” range on the SRI (Scholastic Reading Inventory) . Fewer than 9% scored “Advanced Proficient”. By the end of the second quarter, almost 25% of second graders had scored in the “Advanced Proficient” range on the SRI (up 177%)and fewer than 13% of students were considered “Below Basic” (down 62%). Third and fourth grade students produced around 30% more “advanced proficient” scores for reading comprehension on the SRI by the end of the second quarter than they did at the beginning of the year. The percentage of students scoring “Below Basic” declined over the last quarter for both grades from around 7% to around 4% (down 42%). Fifth graders produced the fewest gains in “Advanced Proficient” ratings (up 17%) on the SRI. Fewer than 2% of fifth graders scored in the “Below Basic” range on the SRI however. As to individual school results, Sandshore second graders out produced and out gained second graders from other schools (36% scored “Advanced Proficient”). CMS produced the best group of third grade readers (37% were considered “Advanced Proficient)”.

  28. District SRI Grade 2 2012 – 2013

  29. District SRI Grade 3 2012 – 2013

  30. District SRI Grade 4 2012 – 2013

  31. District SRI Grade 5 2012 – 2013

  32. School-Based Reading Comprehension results Sandshore second graders out produced and out gained second graders from other schools (36% scored “Advanced Proficient”) on the last administration of the Scholastic reading Inventory (SRI). CMS produced the best group of third grade scores on the SRI (37% were considered “Advanced Proficient”. Sandshore school produced the best 4th grade results. Around 33% of 4th graders scored in the “advanced” range on the SRI. The fifth graders of Tinc Road scored the highest percentage of “advanced” performances on the SRI (45%) Overall, all schools produced more “advanced proficient” performances on the SRI and many fewer “below basic” performances on the second quarter SRI assessments compared to the beginning of the year (although Sandshore second graders produced a slight increase in “below basic” scores).

  33. Chester M. Stephens SRI Grade 2 2012 – 2013

  34. Chester M. Stephens SRI Grade 3 2012 – 2013

  35. Chester M. Stephens SRI Grade 4 2012 – 2013

  36. Chester M. Stephens SRI Grade 5 2012 – 2013

  37. Mountain View SRI Grade 2 2012 – 2013 IMPRESSIVE GAIN

  38. Mountain View SRI Grade 3 2012 – 2013

  39. Mountain View SRI Grade 4 2012 – 2013

  40. Mountain View SRI Grade 5 2012 – 2013

  41. SandShore SRI Grade 2 2012 – 2013 IMPRESSIVE GAIN

  42. SandShore SRI Grade 3 2012 – 2013

  43. SandShore SRI Grade 4 2012 – 2013 IMPRESSIVE GAIN

  44. SandShore SRI Grade 5 2012 – 2013

  45. Tinc Rd. SRI Grade 2 2012 – 2013 IMPRESSIVE GAIN

  46. Tinc Rd. SRI Grade 3 2012 – 2013

  47. Tinc Rd. SRI Grade 4 2012 – 2013

  48. Tinc Rd. SRI Grade 5 2012 – 2013

  49. Reading Comprehension resultsby Multi-year COHORTS Examining SRI by cohorts (following the same students scores over time) yields an impressive long view of reading skills. The 2009 group of second graders for instance produced an aggregate gain of 652 lexile points by the middle of their fifth grade year on the Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) test. All tested groups seem to hover in the 1000 to 1050 lexile range by the time the students reached middle school age.

  50. Elementary 3 Year CohortOctober 2009 to November 2012

More Related