1 / 34

NJ Testing Report Spring 2013

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

jaclyn
Download Presentation

NJ Testing Report Spring 2013

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. NJ Testing ReportSpring 2013 HARDING TOWNSHIP SCHOOL Alex Anemone, Ed.D. October 7, 2013

  2. 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…

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. English Language Arts Grade 3

  7. MathematicsGrade 3

  8. 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

  9. English Language ArtsGrade 4

  10. MathematicsGrade 4

  11. 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.

  12. ScienceGrade 4 12

  13. 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

  14. English Language ArtsGrade 5

  15. MathematicsGrade 5

  16. 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

  17. English Language ArtsGrade 6

  18. MathematicsGrade 6

  19. 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

  20. English Language ArtsGrade 7

  21. MathematicsGrade 7

  22. 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

  23. English Language ArtsGrade 8

  24. MathematicsGrade 8

  25. 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

  26. ScienceGrade 8

  27. 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%

  28. 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%

  29. 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%

  30. 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%

  31. Cohort Analysis (cont’d) • Grade Six to Seven • Math Adv. Prof. +10% • Grade Seven to Eight • ELA Part. Prof. -7% • Math Adv. Prof. +32%

  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.

  33. 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.

More Related