340 likes | 473 Views
NJ Testing Report Spring 2013. HARDING TOWNSHIP SCHOOL Alex Anemone, Ed.D. October 7, 2013. This Report Includes:. 2013 NJASK results for Grades 3 through 8 Inclusive of Special Education Disaggregated General Ed. and Special Ed. Comparisons to Statewide and DFG J ELA Grades 3-8
E N D
NJ Testing ReportSpring 2013 HARDING TOWNSHIP SCHOOL Alex Anemone, Ed.D. October 7, 2013
This Report Includes: • 2013 NJASK results for Grades 3 through 8 • Inclusive of Special Education • Disaggregated General Ed. and Special Ed. • Comparisons to Statewide and DFG J • ELA Grades 3-8 • Math Grades 3-8 • Science Grades 4 and 8 • Cohort Analysis • Testing Highlights • Next Steps…
Testing Highlights • Narrowed “gaps” in five areas when compared to J Districts; improvements ranged from 0.1% - 13.1%. • Above J Districts in two areas – Grade 3 Math and Grade 4 Science. • Increased number of “Perfect 300” scores in Math from 0 in 2012 to 14 in 2013. • Mean scores in Grade 3 Math and Grade 4 Science were over 250 – Advanced Proficient.
District Factor Group • DFG (J Districts) results compare HTS test results to districts of a similar socioeconomic status. Community wealth and education levels are the primary criteria. • Harding Township is a “J” district, the highest DFG rating and the most competitive comparison. • Other “J” districts include: Mendham Borough, Mendham Twp., Chatham, Ridgewood, Millburn. Mt. Lakes, Saddle River and Woodcliff Lakes.
NJASK Grade 3 May 2013 39 Students (1 Student ≈ 2.56%) • English Language Arts 20132012201120102009 • % Advanced Proficient 10.3 0 14.0 0.0 2.7 • % Proficient 74.4 84.6 54.5 62.5 70.3 • % Partially Proficient 15.3 15.4 31.5 37.527 • Mathematics • % Advanced Proficient 53.8 46.2 56.6 42.5 24.3 • % Proficient 43.6 38.5 39.1 42.5 48.6 • % Partially Proficient 2.6 15.4 4.3 15 27 • *Please note: Math scores above J District average.
NJASK Grade 4 May 2013 40 Students (1 Student ≈ 2.5%) • English Language Arts 20132012201120102009 • % Advanced Proficient 12.5 0 7.0 5.1 6.7 • % Proficient 62.5 75 76.7 61.5 80 • % Partially Proficient 25.0 25 16.3 33.3 13.3 • Mathematics • % Advanced Proficient 42.5 33.3 34.1 25.6 40 • % Proficient 45.0 50 54.5 51.3 50 • % Partially Proficient 12.5 16.7 11.4 23.1 10
NJASK Grade 4 May 2013 40 Students (1 Student ≈ 2.5%) Science 2013201220112010 2009 • % Advanced Proficient 72.5 62.5 61.4 53.8 70 • % Proficient 27.5 33.3 34.1 46.2 30 • % Partially Proficient 0 4.2 4.5 0 0 • Please note: Science scores higher than J Districts.
NJASK Grade 5 May 2013 25 Students (1 Student ≈ 4.0%) • English Language Arts 20132012201120102009 • % Advanced Proficient 0 2.2 0 21.2 2 • % Proficient 76.0 66.7 69.2 51.5 74.5 • % Partially Proficient 24.0 31.1 30.8 27.3 23.5 • Mathematics • % Advanced Proficient 44.0 33.3 33.3 36.4 23.5 • % Proficient 44.0 53.4 53.8 51.5 52.9 • % Partially Proficient 12.0 13.3 12.8 12.1 23.5
NJASK Grade 6 May 2013 39 Students (1 Student ≈ 2.56%) • English Language Arts 20132012201120102009 • % Advanced Proficient 2.5 13.2 12.1 12.5 3.6 • % Proficient 82.1 73.7 72.7 77.1 89.3 • % Partially Proficient 15.4 13.2 15.2 10.4 7.1 • Mathematics • % Advanced Proficient 35.9 34.2 47.1 33.3 25 • % Proficient 43.6 60.5 50.0 58.3 71.4 • % Partially Proficient 20.5 5.3 2.9 8.3 3.6
NJASK Grade 7 May 2013 34 Students (1 Student ≈ 2.94%) • English Language Arts 20132012201120102009 • % Advanced Proficient 8.9 14.3 11.4 33.3 44.4 • % Proficient 67.6 67.9 77.3 62.5 51.1 • % Partially Proficient 23.5 17.9 11.4 4.2 4.4 • Mathematics • % Advanced Proficient 44.1 21.4 36.4 33.3 57.8 • % Proficient 38.2 64.3 47.7 54.2 26.7 • % Partially Proficient 17.6 14.3 15.9 12.5 15.6
NJASK Grade 8 May 2013 28 Students (1 Student ≈ 3.57%) • English Language Arts 20132012201120102009 • % Advanced Proficient 14.3 20.0 37.5 41.9 6.7 • % Proficient 75.0 77.8 62.5 53.5 90 • % Partially Proficient 10.7 2.2 0 4.7 3.3 • Mathematics • % Advanced Proficient 53.6 44.4 58.3 67.4 63.3 • % Proficient 21.4 48.9 41.7 27.9 33.3 • % Partially Proficient 25.0 6.7 0 4.7 3.3
NJASK Grade 8 May 2013 28 Students (1 Student ≈ 3.57%) • Science 20132012201120102009 % Advanced Proficient 50.0 44.7 37.5 55.8 53.3 • % Proficient 39.3 46.8 62.5 39.5 43.3 • % Partially Proficient 10.7 8.5 0 4.7 3.3
Disaggregated Data • General Education Students • ELA Adv. Prof. 9.5% • ELA Prof. 77.5% • ELA Part. Prof. 13% • Special Education Students • ELA Adv. Prof. 2.9% • ELA Prof. 51.4% • ELA Part. Prof. 45.7%
Disaggregated Data • General Education Students • Math Adv. Prof. 51.5% • Math Prof. 41.4% • Math Part. Prof. 7.1% • Special Education Students • Math Adv. Prof. 17.1% • Math Prof. 34.3% • Math Part. Prof. 48.6%
Disaggregated Data • General Education Students • Science Adv. Prof. 69.1% • Science Prof. 30.9% • Science Part. Prof. 0% • Special Education Students • Science Adv. Prof. 41.7% • Science Prof. 41.7% • Science Part. Prof. 16.7%
Cohort Analysis • Grade Three to Four • ELA Adv. Prof. +13% • Math Part. Prof. -2% • Grade Four to Five • Math Adv. Prof. +11% • Math Part. Prof. -5% • Grade Five to Six • ELA Part. Prof. -16% • Math Adv. Prof. +3%
Cohort Analysis (cont’d) • Grade Six to Seven • Math Adv. Prof. +10% • Grade Seven to Eight • ELA Part. Prof. -7% • Math Adv. Prof. +32%
Testing Highlights • Narrowed “gaps” in five areas when compared to J Districts; improvements ranged from 0.1% - 13.1%. • Above J Districts in two areas – Grade 3 Math and Grade 4 Science. • Increased number of “Perfect 300” scores in Math from 0 in 2012 to 14 in 2013. • Mean scores in Grade 3 Math and Grade 4 Science were over 250 – Advanced Proficient.
Next Steps… • Continue to implement Singapore Math in grades K-4. • Continue to implement Reading Street in grades K-6. • Continue to integrate novels into the ELA Curriculum. • District Writing Assessment/Writing Across Curriculum. • Year Two of MAP Testing in grades 2-8. • AIP enrollment. • NJASK Prep Packets - grades 3-8. • Intervention and Referral Process reviewed. • Hired four “teacher coaches” • ELA K-4, ELA 5-8, Math K-4, Math 5-8.