1 / 41

State Testing March 2006

State Testing March 2006. Grades 3-8 (NJASK and GEPA). District Factor Grouping. DFG results compare our children’s test results to those in districts of similar socioeconomic status. Community wealth and educational levels are primary criteria.

mizell
Télécharger la présentation

State Testing March 2006

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. State Testing March 2006 Grades 3-8 (NJASK and GEPA)

  2. District Factor Grouping • DFG results compare our children’s test results to those in districts of similar socioeconomic status. Community wealth and educational levels are primary criteria. • Mendham Borough is a “J” district, the highest DFG rating, so our children’s work is compared to similar districts, the most competitive level of comparison. • A few other J districts are Harding, Mendham Twnshp, Millburn, Mt. Lakes, and Tewksbury.

  3. Nature of Comparisons • Comparing grade 3 and 4 results from the same year means comparing two differentcohorts’ results. • Comparing grade 3 of last year to grade 4 of this year means we are comparing the same students’ results, but on different tests.

  4. NJASK Grade 3 All 83 Students March 2006 • Language Arts Literacy 20062005 2004 • % Advanced Proficient 1.21.51.3 • % Proficient 90.494.193.6 • % Partially Proficient 8.4 4.4 5.1 • Mathematics • % Advanced Proficient 38.657.443.6 • % Proficient 57.8 39.7 52.6 • % Partially Proficient 3.62.9 3.8

  5. Comparisons Grade 3, 2006Language Arts Literacy all 83 students Total StudentsHilltopState Advanced Proficient 1.2 3.4 Proficient 90.4 79.0 Partially Proficient 8.4 17.5 HilltopJ Districts Advanced Proficient 1.2 8.0 Proficient 90.4 87.5 Partially Proficient 8.4 4.5

  6. LAL Total Proficiency Comparisons Grade 3

  7. NJASK Grade 3 All 83 Students March 2006 • Language Arts Literacy 20062005 2004 • % Advanced Proficient 1.21.51.3 • % Proficient 90.494.193.6 • % Partially Proficient 8.4 4.4 5.1 • Mathematics • % Advanced Proficient 38.657.443.6 • % Proficient 57.8 39.7 52.6 • % Partially Proficient 3.62.9 3.8

  8. Comparisons Grade 3, 2006Mathematics all 83 students

  9. Mathematics Total Proficiency Comparisons Grade 3

  10. NJASK Grade 4All 69 Students 2006 • Language Arts Literacy 2006 2005 2004 • Advanced Proficient 7.24.1 10.1 • Proficient 85.5 89.2 83.5 • Partially Proficient 7.26.8 6.3 • Mathematics • Advanced Proficient 73.954.1 31.6 • Proficient 21.743.2 58.2 • Partially Proficient 4.32.7 10.1

  11. Comparisons Grade 4, 2006Language Arts Literacy all 69 students Total StudentsHilltopState Advanced Proficient7.2 3.8 Proficient85.5 76.2 Partially Proficient 7.2 20.0 Hilltop J District Advanced Proficient 7.2 9.6 Proficient 85.5 84.8 Partially Proficient 7.2 5.5

  12. LAL Total Proficiency Comparison Grade 4

  13. NJASK Grade 4All 69 Students 2006 • Language Arts Literacy 2006 2005 2004 • Advanced Proficient 7.24.1 10.1 • Proficient 85.5 89.2 83.5 • Partially Proficient 7.26.8 6.3 • Mathematics • Advanced Proficient 73.954.1 31.6 • Proficient 21.743.2 58.2 • Partially Proficient 4.32.7 10.1

  14. Comparisons Grade 4, 2006Mathematics all 69 students Total StudentsHilltopState Advanced Proficient 73.9 41.1 Proficient 21.7 41.2 Partially Proficient 4.3 17.6 HilltopJ District Advanced Proficient 73.9 63.0 Proficient 21.7 32.0 Partially Proficient 4.3 5.0

  15. Mathematics Total Proficiency Comparison Grade 4

  16. NJASK 5 74 students • Language Arts Literacy Mt V State • Advanced Proficient 16.2% 9.3% • Proficient 78.4% 76.6% • Partially Proficient 5.4% 14.1% • Mathematics • Advanced Proficient 41.9% 27.5% • Proficient 52.7% 54.2% • Partially Proficient 5.4% 18.2%

  17. NJASK 6 82 students • Language Arts Literacy Mt View State • Advanced Proficient 11.1% 9.2% • Proficient 76.5% 65.8% • Partially Proficient 12.3% 25.0% • Mathematics • Advanced Proficient 32.1% 17.3% • Proficient 46.9% 53.5% • Partially Proficient 21.0% 29.3%

  18. NJASK 7 80 students • Language Arts Literacy Mt View State • Advanced Proficient 22.5% 9.9% • Proficient 75.0% 70.4% • Partially Proficient 2.5% 19.8% • Mathematics • Advanced Proficient 32.5% 14.4% • Proficient 55% 49.9% • Partially Proficient 12.5% 35.7%

  19. GEPA Grade 82006 58 students • Language Arts Literacy 20062005 2004 • % Advanced Proficient 20.7 29.3 10.1 • % Proficient 77.6 68.3 83.5 • Partially Proficient 1.7 2.4 6.3 • Mathematics • % Advanced Proficient 32.8 43.4 40.3 • % Proficient 60.3 45.8 49.3 • % Partially Proficient 6.9 10.8 10.4

  20. Comparisons Grade 8, 2006Language Arts Literacy (%) Total StudentsMVState Advanced Proficient 20.7 8.5 Proficient 77.6 65.7 Partially Proficient 1.7 25.7

  21. Language Arts Total Proficiency Comparisons Grade 8

  22. GEPA Grade 82006 58 students • Language Arts Literacy 20062005 2004 • % Advanced Proficient 20.7 29.3 10.1 • % Proficient 77.6 68.3 83.5 • Partially Proficient 1.7 2.4 6.3 • Mathematics • % Advanced Proficient 32.8 43.4 40.3 • % Proficient 60.3 45.8 49.3 • % Partially Proficient 6.9 10.8 10.4

  23. Comparisons Grade 8, 2006 Mathematics (%) Total StudentsMVState Advanced Proficient 32.8 20.9 Proficient 60.3 43.6 Partially Proficient 6.9 35.5

  24. Mathematics Total Proficiency Comparisons Grade 8

  25. Cluster Scores Grade 3Language Arts Literacy 2006

  26. Cluster Scores Grade 4Language Arts Literacy 2006

  27. Cluster Scores Grade 8 Language Arts Literacy 2006

  28. Cluster Scores Grade 3Mathematics 06 % of possible

  29. Cluster Scores Grade 4Mathematics 06 % of possible

  30. Cluster Scores Grade 8Mathematics % of possible

  31. Special Education • The test results for students whose learning is supported by special education are included in these data. • Their results, when compared with special education students in other J districts, are generally above average.

  32. So let’s summarize… • Our children’s overall proficiency is very strong.

  33. And we see that… • Our largest interest is to address is Language Arts Literacy. The issues vary from grade to grade. • Our best performance is in areas of mathematics—especially in problem solving, in using mathematics.

  34. Curriculum Planning Language Arts Literacy • Implement instructional practices supported by the latest research • Provide on-going training utilizing the practices from Columbia University (Teachers College Writing Project) • Develop quarterly prompt, timed writing assessments that are aligned with writing units • Collect baseline, mid-year, and final writing assessments to check progress • Monitor writing units to ensure specific units are taught prior to the state test

  35. Curriculum Planning Mathematics K-4 • Develop stronger pre-assessments to help identify strengths and weaknesses of students • Plan time to articulate about student work within and across grade levels

  36. Curriculum Planning Mathematics 5-8 Recent changes to the math program • Rewrote math curriculum at grades 5-8 over the summer of 2006 • Developed a basic skills assessment for each grade level to ensure mastery of fundamental skills • Developed pre-assessments and administered within the first week of school to help identify student readiness

  37. Curriculum Planning Mathematics 5-8 Work to be done this year • Implement instructional practices that are supported by the latest research • Monitor newly implemented math sequence to ensure students receive the necessary support at each grade level • Provide time for teachers to analyze student work and share instructional practices • Develop unit tests that follow a similar format and weighting system as the state tests • Continue to train teachers in differentiated instruction

  38. Finally, thank you for… • Being here because you care to know and to help, and • Sharing the opportunity to contribute to the growth of these excellent children and young people with us.

  39. So let’s summarize… • Grade 3: 91.6% in LA: 96.4% in Math • Grade 4: 92.7% in LA; 95.6% in Math • Grade 5: 94.6% in LA; 94.6% in Math • Grade 6: 87.6% in LA; 79.0% in Math • Grade 7: 97.5% in LA; 87.5% in Math • Grade 8: 98.3% in LA; 93.1% in Math

More Related