Transcript VERNON TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT ASSESSMENT …

VERNON TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT
ASSESSMENT RESULTS
2010 - 2011
NEW JERSEY ASSESSMENT OF SKILLS & KNOWLEDGE
(NJASK 3 – 8)
HIGH SCHOOL PROFICIENCY ASSESSMENT
(HSPA)
NJ BENCHMARKS FOR ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGESS (AYP)
FOR STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Content Area
Grade Span
2003
2005-2007
2008-2010
2011-2013
2014
Language Arts
Elementary
(Grades 3 – 5)
68
75
59
79
100
Middle School
(Grades 6 – 8)
58
66
72
86
100
High School
(Grade 11)
73
79
85
92
100
Elementary
(Grades 3 – 5)
53
62
66
83
100
Middle School
(Grades 6 – 8)
39
49
61
80
100
High School
(Grade 11)
55
64
74
86
100
Mathematics
ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGESS INDICATORS
FOR SCHOOL PERFORMANCE
•
•
•
Schools are required to meet a 95% participation rate on disaggregated data – it is
only reported if the school has 40 students or more in each category for language
arts and mathematics (20 categories)
Schools are required to have students meet the AYP Benchmark Target – it is only
reported if the school has 30 students or more in each category for language arts
and mathematics (20 categories)
School must meet ALL 40 categories to meet AYP.
DISAGGREGATED CATEGORIES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total Population
Students with Disabilities
Limited English Proficient
White
African-American
6. Asian/Pacific Islander
7. American Indian/Native American
8. Hispanic
9. Others
10. Economically Disadvantaged
HOW OUR SCHOOLS PERFORMED - AYP
SCHOOL
INDICATORS MET (40 TOTAL)
2009-2010
INDICATORS MET (40 TOTAL)
2010-2011
40
37
(Students with disabilities LAL &
Math & White students in LAL not
met)
39
(Students with disabilities – LAL –
not met)
39
(Economically disadvantaged –
Mathnot met)
Lounsberry Hollow Grade 5
40
40
Lounsberry Hollow Grade 6
39
(Economically disadvantaged – LAL
– not met)
38
(Total population & white students
in LAL not met)
Glen Meadow
37
(Students with disabilities – LAL &
Math & participation in Math – not
met)
33
(All disaggregated clusters in LAL &
total population & economically
disadvantaged in Math not met)
Vernon Township High School
38
(Students with disabilities – LAL &
Math – not met)
39
(Economically disadvantaged –
Math not met)
Cedar Mountain
Rolling Hills
MATHEMATICS
CEDAR MOUNTAIN PRIMARY SCHOOL
GRADE 3 - MATHEMATICS
MATHEMATICS
VALID SCORES
PARTIAL PROFICIENCY
ADV PROFICIENCY/PROFICIENCY
TOTAL STUDENTS
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
134
132
128
41
17
16
30.6%
12.9%
12.5%
93
115
112
69.4%
85.3%
87.5%
104
105
105
26
9
7
25.0%
8.6%
6.7%
78
96
98
75.0%
91.5%
93.3%
30
27
23
15
8
9
50.0%
29.6%
39.1%
15
19
14
50.0%
70.3%
60.9%
GENERAL ED STUDENTS
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
SPECIAL ED STUDENTS
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
ROLLING HILLS PRIMARY SCHOOL
GRADE 3 - MATHEMATICS
MATHEMATICS
VALID SCORES
PARTIAL PROFICIENCY
ADV PROFICIENCY/PROFICIENCY
TOTAL STUDENTS
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
148
169
138
45
33
29
30.4%
19.5%
21.0%
103
136
109
69.6%
80.5%
79%
108
129
94
29
22
14
26.9%
17.1%
14.9%
79
107
80
73.2%
83.0%
85.1%
40
40
41
16
11
14
40.0%
27.5%
34.2%
24
29
27
60.0%
72.5%
65.8%
GENERAL ED STUDENTS
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
SPECIAL ED STUDENTS
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
GRADE 3 MATHEMATICS
2008 - 2011
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
M Part Prof
50.00%
M AP/Prof
40.00%
M DFG Adv/Prof
M State AP/Prof
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
CEDAR MOUNTAIN PRIMARY SCHOOL
GRADE 4 - MATHEMATICS
MATHEMATICS
VALID SCORES
PARTIAL PROFICIENCY
ADV PROFICIENCY/PROFICIENCY
TOTAL STUDENTS
2008-2009
149
44
29.5%
105
70.4%
2009-2010
136
26
19.1%
110
80.8%
2010-2011
133
23
17.3%
110
82.7%
2008-2009
127
31
24.4%
96
75.6%
2009-2010
108
9
8.3%
99
91.7%
2010-2011
110
13
11.8%
97
88.2%
2008-2009
22
13
59.1%
9
40.9%
2009-2010
28
17
60.7%
11
39.2%
2010-2011
23
10
43.5%
13
56.5%
GENERAL ED STUDENTS
SPECIAL ED STUDENTS
ROLLING HILLS PRIMARY SCHOOL
GRADE 4 - MATHEMATICS
MATHEMATICS
VALID SCORES
PARTIAL PROFICIENCY
ADV PROFICIENCY/PROFICIENCY
TOTAL STUDENTS
2008-2009
161
49
30.4%
112
69.6%
2009-2010
151
29
19.2%
122
80.8%
2010-2011
166
28
16.9%
138
83.1%
2008-2009
119
30
25.2%
89
74.8%
2009-2010
114
12
10.5%
102
89.5%
2010-2011
131
16
12.2%
115
87.8%
2008-2009
42
19
45.2%
23
54.7%
2009-2010
37
17
45.9%
20
54.0%
2010-2011
33
12
36.4%
21
63.6%
GENERAL ED STUDENTS
SPECIAL ED STUDENTS
GRADE 4 MATHEMATICS
2008 - 2011
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
M Part Prof
50.00%
M AP/Prof
40.00%
M DFG Adv/Prof
M State AP/Prof
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
LOUNSBERRY HOLLOW MIDDLE SCHOOL
GRADE 5 - MATHEMATICS
MATHEMATICS
VALID SCORES
PARTIAL PROFICIENCY
ADV PROFICIENCY/PROFICIENCY
TOTAL STUDENTS
2008-2009
300
97
32.3%
203
67.6%
2009-2010
312
77
24.7%
235
75.3%
2010-2011
276
77
27.9%
199
72.1%
2008-2009
243
63
25.9%
180
74.0%
2009-2010
263
45
17.1%
218
82.8%
2010-2011
222
42
18.9%
180
81.0%
2008-2009
57
34
59.6%
23
40.4%
2009-2010
49
32
65.3%
17
34.7%
2010-2011
54
35
64.8%
19
35.2%
GENERAL ED STUDENTS
SPECIAL ED STUDENTS
GRADE 5 MATHEMATICS
2008 - 2011
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
M Part Prof
50.00%
M AP/Prof
40.00%
M DFG Adv/Prof
30.00%
M State AP/Prof
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
LOUNSBERRY HOLLOW MIDDLE SCHOOL
GRADE 6 - MATHEMATICS
MATHEMATICS
VALID SCORES
PARTIAL PROFICIENCY
ADV PROFICIENCY/PROFICIENCY
TOTAL STUDENTS
2008-2009
321
108
33.6%
213
66.4%
2009-2010
305
89
29.2%
216
70.9%
2010-2011
307
68
22.1%
239
77.9%
2008-2009
275
72
26.2%
203
73.8%
2009-2010
252
65
25.8%
187
74.2%
2010-2011
249
39
15.7%
210
84.3%
2008-2009
46
36
78.3%
10
21.8%
2009-2010
53
24
45.3%
29
54.7%
2010-2011
58
29
50.0%
29
50.0%
GENERAL ED STUDENTS
SPECIAL ED STUDENTS
GRADE 6 MATHEMATICS
2008 - 2011
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
M Part Prof
50.00%
M AP/Prof
40.00%
M DFG Adv/Prof
30.00%
M State AP/Prof
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
GLEN MEADOW MIDDLE SCHOOL
GRADE 7 - MATHEMATICS
MATHEMATICS
VALID SCORES
PARTIAL PROFICIENCY
ADV PROFICIENCY/PROFICIENCY
TOTAL STUDENTS
2008-2009
327
108
33.0%
219
66.9%
2009-2010
322
120
37.3%
202
62.7%
2010-2011
294
102
34.7%
192
65.3%
2008-2009
271
58
21.4%
213
78.6%
2009-2010
270
79
29.3%
191
70.7%
2010-2011
245
67
27.3%
178
77.6%
2008-2009
56
50
89.3%
6
10.7%
2009-2010
51
40
78.4%
11
21.6%
2010-2011
49
35
71.4%
14
28.6%
GENERAL ED STUDENTS
SPECIAL ED STUDENTS
GRADE 7 MATHEMATICS
2008 - 2011
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
M Part Prof
40.00%
M AP/Prof
M DFG Adv/Prof
30.00%
M State AP/Prof
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
GLEN MEADOW MIDDLE SCHOOL
GRADE 8 - MATHEMATICS
MATHEMATICS
VALID SCORES
PARTIAL PROFICIENCY
ADV PROFICIENCY/PROFICIENCY
TOTAL STUDENTS
2008-2009
383
83
21.7%
300
78.3%
2009-2010
320
85
26.6%
235
73.5%
2010-2011
317
83
26.2%
234
73.8%
2008-2009
308
27
8.8%
282
91.2%
2009-2010
266
43
16.2%
223
83.9%
2010-2011
258
42
16.3%
216
83.7%
2008-2009
74
55
74.3%
19
25.7%
2009-2010
54
42
77.8%
12
22.3%
2010-2011
59
41
69.5%
18
30.5%
GENERAL ED STUDENTS
SPECIAL ED STUDENTS
GRADE 8 MATHEMATICS
2008 - 2011
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
M Part Prof
50.00%
M AP/Prof
40.00%
M DFG Adv/Prof
30.00%
M State AP/Prof
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
VERNON TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL
GRADE 11 - MATHEMATICS
MATHEMATICS
VALID SCORES
PARTIAL PROFICIENCY
ADV PROFICIENCY/PROFICIENCY
TOTAL STUDENTS
2008-2009
428
113
26.4%
315
73.6%
2009-2010
388
81
20.9%
307
79.1%
2010-2011
353
69
19.5%
284
80.5%
2008-2009
383
74
19.3%
309
80.7%
2009-2010
339
41
12.1%
298
87.9%
2010-2011
303
35
11.6%
268
88.5%
2008-2009
43
38
88.4%
5
11.6%
2009-2010
46
38
82.6%
8
17.4%
2010-2011
49
33
67.3%
16
32.7%
GENERAL ED STUDENTS
SPECIAL ED STUDENTS
GRADE 11 MATHEMATICS
2008 - 2011
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
M Part Prof
50.00%
M AP/Prof
40.00%
M DFG Adv/Prof
30.00%
M State AP/Prof
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
MATHEMATICS ASSESSMENT
 Students are assessed in five mathematics clusters
1. Number Sense and Numerical Operations
2. Geometry and Measurement
3. Patterns and Algebra
4. Data Analysis, Probability and Discrete Mathematics
5. Problem Solving
CLUSTER RESULTS
Number & Numeric Operations:
Grades 3 through 8 mean score was below the DFG and State
Geometry & Measurement:
Grade 3 mean score was the same as the DFG and above the State
Grade 4 mean score was below the DFG and above the State
Grades 5 – 8 mean score was below the DFG and the State
Patterns & Algebra
Grades 3, 5, 7, 8 mean scores were below the DFG and State
Grade 4 mean score was above the DFG and State
Grade 6 mean score was below the DFG and the same as the State
Data Analysis, Probability and Discrete Mathematics
Grade 3 – 4 mean scores were above the DFG and State
Grade 5, 6, 8 mean scores were below the DFG and State
Grade 7 mean score was below the DFG and the same as the State
CLUSTER RESULTS CONTINUED
Problem Solving
Grades 3 – 4 mean scores were below the DFG and above the State
Grades 5 – 8 mean scores were below the DFG and the State
High School Proficiency Assessment
All cluster means were above the Just Proficient Mean
LANGUAGE ARTS
CEDAR MOUNTAIN PRIMARY SCHOOL
GRADE 3 – LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY
LANGUAGE ARTS
VALID SCORES
PARTIAL PROFICIENCY
ADV PROFICIENCY/PROFICIENCY
TOTAL STUDENTS
2008-2009
134
47
35.1%
87
64.9%
2009-2010
131
38
29.0%
93
70.9%
2010-2011
128
40
31.3%
88
68.8%
2008-2009
104
26
25.0%
78
75.0%
2009-2010
105
22
21.0%
83
79.1%
2010-2011
105
33
31.4%
62
68.6%
2008-2009
30
21
70.0%
9
30.0%
2009-2010
26
16
61.5%
10
38.5%
2010-2011
23
7
30.4%
16
69.6%
GENERAL ED STUDENTS
SPECIAL ED STUDENTS
ROLLING HILLS PRIMARY SCHOOL
GRADE 3 – LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY
LANGUAGE ARTS
VALID SCORES
PARTIAL PROFICIENCY
ADV PROFICIENCY/PROFICIENCY
TOTAL STUDENTS
2008-2009
148
53
35.8%
95
64.2%
2009-2010
168
56
33.3%
112
66.7%
2010-2011
138
46
33.3%
91
66.7%
2008-2009
108
32
29.6%
76
70.4%
2009-2010
128
34
26.6%
94
73.4%
2010-2011
94
13
13.8%
81
86.2%
2008-2009
40
21
52.5%
19
47.5%
2009-2010
40
22
55.0%
18
45.0%
2010-2011
41
32
78.0%
9
22.0%
GENERAL ED STUDENTS
SPECIAL ED STUDENTS
GRADE 3 LANGUAGE ARTS
2008 - 2011
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
M Part Prof
50.00%
M AP/Prof
40.00%
M DFG Adv/Prof
M State AP/Prof
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
CEDAR MOUNTAIN PRIMARY SCHOOL
GRADE 4 – LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY
LANGUAGE ARTS
VALID SCORES
PARTIAL PROFICIENCY
ADV PROFICIENCY/PROFICIENCY
TOTAL STUDENTS
2008-2009
148
52
35.1%
96
64.9%
2009-2010
136
39
28.7%
97
71.3%
2010-2011
133
37
27.8%
96
72.2%
2008-2009
127
38
29.9%
89
70.0%
2009-2010
108
19
17.6%
89
82.4%
2010-2011
110
20
18.2%
90
81.9%
2008-2009
21
14
66.7%
7
33.4%
2009-2010
28
20
71.4%
8
28.6%
2010-2011
23
17
73.9%
6
26.0%
GENERAL ED STUDENTS
SPECIAL ED STUDENTS
ROLLING HILLS PRIMARY SCHOOL
GRADE 4 – LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY
LANGUAGE ARTS
VALID SCORES
PARTIAL PROFICIENCY
ADV PROFICIENCY/PROFICIENCY
TOTAL STUDENTS
2008-2009
158
41
25.0%
117
75.0%
2009-2010
150
54
36.0%
96
63.0%
2010-2011
167
34
20.4%
133
79.7%
2008-2009
119
23
19.3%
96
80.7%
2009-2010
113
24
21.2%
89
78.7%
2010-2011
132
17
12.9%
115
87.2%
2008-2009
39
18
46.2%
21
53.8%
2009-2010
37
30
81.1%
7
18.9%
2010-2011
33
16
48.5%
17
51.5%
GENERAL ED STUDENTS
SPECIAL ED STUDENTS
GRADE 4 LANGUAGE ARTS
2008 - 2011
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
M Part Prof
50.00%
M AP/Prof
40.00%
M DFG Adv/Prof
M State AP/Prof
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
LOUNSBERRY HOLLOW MIDDLE SCHOOL
GRADE 5 – LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY
LANGUAGE ARTS
VALID SCORES
PARTIAL PROFICIENCY
ADV PROFICIENCY/PROFICIENCY
TOTAL STUDENTS
2008-2009
300
101
33.7%
199
66.3%
2009-2010
311
121
38.9%
190
61.1%
2010-2011
275
106
37.3%
169
61.4%
2008-2009
244
58
23.8%
186
76.2%
2009-2010
263
82
31.2%
181
68.8%
2010-2011
222
61
26.5%
161
72.6%
2008-2009
56
43
76.8%
13
23.2%
2009-2010
48
39
81.3%
9
18.8%
2010-2011
53
45
84.6%
8
15.1%
GENERAL ED STUDENTS
SPECIAL ED STUDENTS
GRADE 5 LANGUAGE ARTS
2008 - 2011
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
M Part Prof
40.00%
M AP/Prof
M DFG Adv/Prof
30.00%
M State AP/Prof
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
LOUNSBERRY HOLLOW MIDDLE SCHOOL
GRADE 6 – LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY
LANGUAGE ARTS
VALID SCORES
PARTIAL PROFICIENCY
ADV PROFICIENCY/PROFICIENCY
TOTAL STUDENTS
2008-2009
321
82
25.5%
239
74.5%
2009-2010
304
83
27.3%
221
72.7%
2010-2011
306
101
33.0%
205
67.0%
2008-2009
275
49
17.8%
226
82.2%
2009-2010
252
50
19.8%
202
80.2%
2010-2011
249
68
27.3%
181
72.7%
2008-2009
46
33
71.7%
13
28.3%
2009-2010
52
33
63.5%
19
36.5%
2010-2011
57
33
57.9%
24
42.1%
GENERAL ED STUDENTS
SPECIAL ED STUDENTS
GRADE 6 LANGUAGE ARTS
2008 - 2011
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
M Part Prof
40.00%
M AP/Prof
M DFG Adv/Prof
30.00%
M State AP/Prof
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
GLEN MEADOW MIDDLE SCHOOL
GRADE 7 – LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY
LANGUAGE ARTS
VALID SCORES
PARTIAL PROFICIENCY
ADV PROFICIENCY/PROFICIENCY
TOTAL STUDENTS
2008-2009
324
70
21.6%
254
78.4%
2009-2010
322
79
24.5%
243
75.5%
2010-2011
294
98
33.3%
196
66.7%
2008-2009
270
30
11.1%
240
88.9%
2009-2010
270
43
15.9%
227
83.0%
2010-2011
245
59
24.1%
186
75.9%
2008-2009
54
40
74.1%
14
25.9%
2009-2010
51
35
68.6%
16
31.4%
2010-2011
49
39
79.6%
10
20.4%
GENERAL ED STUDENTS
SPECIAL ED STUDENTS
GRADE 7 – LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY
2008 - 2011
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
M Part Prof
50.00%
M AP/Prof
40.00%
M DFG Adv/Prof
30.00%
M State AP/Prof
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
GLEN MEADOW MIDDLE SCHOOL
GRADE 8 – LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY
LANGUAGE ARTS
VALID SCORES
PARTIAL PROFICIENCY
ADV PROFICIENCY/PROFICIENCY
TOTAL STUDENTS
2008-2009
385
51
13.2%
334
86.8%
2009-2010
322
33
10.2%
289
89.8%
2010-2011
315
39
12.4%
276
87.7%
2008-2009
309
11
3.6%
298
96.4%
2009-2010
266
4
1.5%
262
98.5%
2010-2011
258
11
4.3%
247
95.7%
2008-2009
75
39
52.0%
36
48.0%
2009-2010
56
29
51.8%
27
48.2%
2010-2011
57
28
49.1%
29
50.9%
GENERAL ED STUDENTS
SPECIAL ED STUDENTS
GRADE 8 – LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY
2008 - 2011
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
M Part Prof
50.00%
M AP/Prof
40.00%
M DFG Adv/Prof
M State AP/Prof
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
VERNON TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL
GRADE 11 – LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY
LANGUAGE ARTS
VALID SCORES
PARTIAL PROFICIENCY
ADV PROFICIENCY/PROFICIENCY
TOTAL STUDENTS
2008-2009
428
39
9.1%
389
90.9%
2009-2010
388
34
8.8%
354
91.2%
2010-2011
355
19
5.4%
336
94.6%
2008-2009
383
11
2.9%
372
97.2%
2009-2010
339
7
2.1%
332
97.9%
2010-2011
305
5
1.6%
300
98.3%
2008-2009
43
27
62.8%
16
37.2%
2009-2010
46
27
58.7%
19
41.3%
2010-2011
49
14
28.6%
35
71.4%
GENERAL ED STUDENTS
SPECIAL ED STUDENTS
GRADE 11 – LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY
2008 - 2011
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
M Part Prof
50.00%
M AP/Prof
40.00%
M DFG Adv/Prof
M State AP/Prof
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
LANGUAGE ARTS ASSESSMENT
Reading
 Working with Text (Grades 3 – 8) and Interpreting Text (Grade 11) – Interpretive
strategies such as recognizing central theme, supporting details, and paraphrasing or
retelling.
 Analyzing Text – evaluative strategies such as critiquing text, forming judgments,
drawing conclusions, and understanding textual conventions used by the author.
Writing
 Grades 3 – 5
• Expository Writing – compose an essay that explains a topic
• Speculative Writing – writing a story based on a brief scenario
 Grade 6
• Speculative Writing
• Persuasive Writing – compose an essay that develops a point of view about a given
topic
 Grade 7 – 8
• Persuasive Writing
• Explanatory Writing – compose an essay that informs the reader based on a given
quotation, adage, or topic
 Grade 11
• Expository Writing
• Persuasive Writing
CLUSTER RESULTS
Writing
Grade 3 mean score was below the DFG and higher than the State
Grade 4 & 8 mean scores were above the DFG and State
Grade 5 mean score was below the DFG and State
Grade 6 – 7 mean scores were below the DFG and the same as the State
Expository Writing
Grade 3 mean score was below the DFG and the same as the State
Grade 4 mean score was higher than the DFG and State
Grade 5 mean score was below the DFG and State
Explanatory Writing
Grade 7 mean score was below the DFG and State
Grade 8 mean score was above the DFG and State
Speculative Writing
Grade 3 mean score was below the DFG and above the State
Grade 4 & 6 mean score was the same as the DFG and above the State
Grade 5 mean score was below the DFG and the State
CLUSTER RESULTS CONTINUED
Persuasive Writing
Grades 6 & 7 mean scores were below the DFG and State
Grade 8 mean score was above the DFG and State
Reading
Grades 3, 4, 7, & 8 mean scores were above the DFG and State
Grade 5 mean score was below the DFG and State
Grade 6 mean score was below the DFG and the same as the State
Working with Text
Grade 3 mean score was the same as the DFG and above the State
Grades 4, 7, & 8 mean scores were above the DFG and State
Grades 5 – 6 mean scores were below the DFG and the same as the State
Analyzing Text
Grades 3, 7, & 8 mean scores were the same as the DFG and above the State
Grade 4 mean score was above the DFG and State
Grade 5 mean score was below the DFG and State
Grade 6 mean score was below the DFG and the same as the State
WHAT ARE WE DOING WITH THE RESULTS?
1. Analyzing data




Looking for trends in content areas or grade levels
Reviewing individual teacher results
Identifying individual students or groups of students to engage in remedial assistance
Utilize data to revise curriculum
2. Curriculum
A. LANGUAGE ARTS
 Continue focus on instruction
 Reading specialists at the K – 4 level continue to work with struggling readers &
push into LAL classrooms
 Implement Writers’ Workshop
 Implement Wilson Reading
 DRA
 Leveled readers
 Classroom libraries
 Expanded library collections at all levels
 Teach LAL in a cross curricular manner
WHAT ARE WE DOING WITH THE RESULTS?
B. MATHEMATICS
 Continued focus on instruction
 Follow newly implemented curriculum maps
 Continue to increase the use of technology
 Emphasize looping of skills
 Utilize materials specifically designed for test preparation
 Review textbooks
3. Teacher Training






Focus teacher training on implementation of sound teaching strategies
Review of longitudinal test scores
Differentiation of instruction
Focus of faculty meetings on curriculum and instruction
Continue to bring in content area specialists to work with faculty
Engage in meaningful professional development in content and instruction
WHAT ARE WE DOING WITH THE RESULTS?
. Special Education
 Continue to increase academic rigor of special education classes by work with the
regular education staff on curriculum and instruction in the content areas
 Special education teachers work collaboratively with regular education teachers in the
same subject areas to increase their subject area knowledge
 Subject area professional development for special education teachers
 Reviewing the practice of team teaching by regular and special education teachers
 Reviewing instructional models that focus on content with an emphasize on
differentiation
QUESTIONS