Transcript New Jersey Department of Education School Performance Reports

New Jersey Department of Education
School Performance Reports
PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION
AND PUBLIC
APRIL 15, 2013
School Performance Report Overview
 Seeks to bring more information to educators and




other stakeholders
Hopes to spur conversations at school and district
levels
Cautions against using information to create a
summative ranking of schools
Acknowledges that essential elements of schools are
not collected by DOE / used in the report
2012 report serves as a baseline year for certain data
Comparative Data
 Schools Across the State
 Peer school
 Each school has a distinct peer school list
 30 schools included
 Lists may vary from year-to-year based on data
 Not a ranking – simply listed alphabetically by county
Peer School Methodology



Propensity score matching
Researcher constructs comparison groups from data outside
the control of an experiment
Schools Stratified based on
type - elementary, middle, high school or vocational high school
 free- and/or reduced-price lunch


Statistical analysis (regression model with three covariates)
applied
% free- and/or reduced lunch
 % LEP
 % Special Education


Any school within two standard deviations of the eligible
school is included as a peer school.
Academic Achievement
Data from the ASK including: 1) schoolwide and
subgroup proficiency levels; and 2) annual measurable
objectives (these replace AYP previously used) which
are calculated using 2011 as a baseline year and setting
improvement targets for a five year period. These are
also reported schoolwide and for subgroups.
Note: This information on a district wide basis was
provided to the Board of Education members and the
public at an earlier Board meeting.
Student Academic Achievement
School
State Comparison
AR
SM
RR
RO
MS
Average
Lagging
Lagging
Lagging
Average
Peer Group
Comparison
High
Lagging
High
Lagging
High
Schoolwide Student Growth
 All student growth scores are ranked from highest to
lowest.

Student growth scores are calculated by comparing a student’s
ASK performance to that academic peers (Students with a
similar test history) throughout the state. Each student’s SGP
is on a scale between 1 and 99.
 Median growth is identified to represent school wide
student growth.
Schoolwide Student Growth Performance
School
State Comparison
AR
SM
RR
RO
MS
High
Average
High
High
Lagging
Peer Group
Comparison
High
High
Very High
Very High
Average
College and Career Readiness
Chronic absenteeism
 Defined as “a student who is not present for 10% of
the school year, for any reason.”
 Any school with more than 6% of the students having
chronic absenteeism is reported as having not met
the target.
 Only measure used at the elementary level.
College and Career Readiness Rankings –
Elementary Schools
School
 AR
%
7%
Peer Rank
65
State Rank
37
 RR
4%
90
67
 RO
7%
52
43
 SM
8%
71
36
College and Career Readiness
Middle Level
 Chronic Absenteeism

GTMS’ rate is 7%.
Peer Rank: 68
State Rank: 56
 Participation of seventh and
eighth grade students in
Algebra I.
 Any school without 20% of
the students enrolled in
Algebra I is reported as not
having met the target.
 GTMS has 19% of student
enrolled in Algebra.
 Students in Geometry did
not count toward this
measure.
Peer Rank: 85
State Rank: 52
Additional Data
Included in Prior School
Report Card Format and New
Format
New to School Performance
Report Format
 Length of School Day
 Inclusion of
 Instructional Time
 Student Suspension
Rate
 Student Expulsion Rate
 Student to Staff Ratio




Economically
Disadvantaged in
Enrollment by Program
Participation
Enrollment by
Ethnic/Racial Subgroup
Enrollment by Gender
Within School
Achievement Gap
List of Peer Schools
Next Steps / For Consideration
 Continue to focus on increasing student achievement
 Enhance understanding of student growth
percentiles as related to the School Performance
Report and Teacher / Principal Evaluation
 Review policies and procedures related to student
absenteeism
 Consider advanced mathematics options in light of
the report and the Common Core State Standards
(which contradict one another)

Presentation to be made on April 22nd by Mrs. Napoli,
Supervisor of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
To view the school report cards in their
entirely visit:
http://education.state.nj.us/pr/
QUESTIONS / COMMENTS