Transcript UPPER SADDLE RIVER DISTRICT TESTING REPORT BOE Presentation – 10.20.14 Devin Severs, Curriculum Coordinator.

UPPER SADDLE RIVER
DISTRICT TESTING REPORT
BOE Presentation – 10.20.14
Devin Severs, Curriculum Coordinator
How did our students perform on NJASK?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
General
Performance
State and District
Factor Group
(DFG)
Comparison
Sub-Group
Disaggregated
Data
Historical
Perspective
PARCC
Assessments
GENERAL
PERFORMANCE
Upper Saddle River Performance
Advanced Proficiency, Proficiency, and Partial
Proficiency
NJASK General Performance (20132014)
Language Arts
Mathematics
Gr.
Adv.
Prof.
Prof.
Part.
Prof.
Gr.
Adv.
Prof.
Prof.
Part.
Prof.
3
16.7
78.1
5.3
3
79.8
18.4
1.8
4
17.9
78.9
3.3
4
81.3
16.3
2.4
5
31.1
67.2
1.7
5
87.4
12.6
0.0
6
29.5
66.7
3.9
6
74.4
24.8
0.8
7
38.4
52.9
8.7
7
60.1
36.2
3.6
8
41.9
57.4
0.8
8
76.7
20.2
3.1
NJASK General Performance (20132014)
Science
Grade
Adv.
Prof.
Prof.
Part.
Prof.
4
78.9
21.1
0.0
8
71.3
27.1
1.6
STATE AND DISTRICT
FACTOR GROUP
COMPARISON
DFG and State Comparison,
Total Proficiency and Advanced Proficiency
District Factor Group J Districts
The DFG Model
The DFG is an index of socioeconomic status that is created using data for several "indicators" available in
the decennial Census of Population. Socioeconomic status cannot be measured directly. Rather, the
literature holds that it is a function of other, measurable quantities (traditionally, the basic three are income,
occupation, and education). Therefore, the DFG is a composite statistical index created using statistical
procedures, a "model" of socioeconomic status, and input data for various socioeconomic traits. Seven
indices were developed from the census data as follows:
*Percent of population with no high school diploma
*Percent with some college
*Income
*Unemployment
*Occupation
*Population density
*Poverty
Note: Taken from NJ Department of Education
District Factor Group J Districts
• Glen Rock
• HoHoKus
• Northern Highlands
• Ridgewood
• Saddle River
• Woodcliff Lake
• Haddonfield
• Essex Fells
• Millburn
• North Caldwell
• Tewskbury
• West Windsor Plainsboro
• Cranbury
•According
Little Silver
to the 2000
•census
Rumson
NJ ASK DFG & State Comparison
(Total Proficiency and Advanced Proficiency)
Grades 3-5
Comparison
LAL
(Total
Proficiency)
LAL
(Advanced
Proficiency)
Math
(Total
Proficiency)
Math
(Advanced
Proficiency)
USR [3]
94.8
16.7*
98.2
79.8
DFG [3]
94.4
16.9
97.2
75.4
State [3]
73.6
5.3
81.4
45.0
USR [4]
96.8
17.9
97.6
81.3
DFG [4]
92.8
13.9
96.9
72.9
State [4]
67.2
4.3
80.9
40.7
USR [5]
98.3
31.1
100
87.4
DFG [5]
94.2
27.2
98.3
75.5
State [5]
70.4
9.9
86.2
43.7
NJ ASK DFG & State Comparison
(Total Proficiency and Advanced Proficiency)
Grades 6-8
Comparison
LAL
(Total
Proficiency)
LAL
(Advanced
Proficiency)
Math
(Total
Proficiency)
Math
(Advanced
Proficiency)
USR [6]
96.2*
29.5
99.2
74.4
DFG [6]
96.3
27.5
98.8
72.9
State [6]
75.7
10.6
86.8
40.9
USR [7]
91.3
38.4
96.3
60.1
DFG [7]
95.2
42.7
95.7
61.3
State [7]
72.9
18.0
75.2
29.6
USR [8]
99.3
41.9
96.9*
76.2
DFG [8]
99.0
37.4
97.0
71.6
State [8]
88.3
15.1
80.1
41.7
Language Arts Literacy
General Education- Advanced Proficient Comparison
Math
General Education- Advanced Proficient Comparison
NJ ASK DFG & State Comparison
(Total Proficiency and Advanced Proficiency)
Science
Comparison
Total Proficiency
Advanced Proficiency
USR [4]
100
78.9*
DFG [4]
99.3
78.8
State [4]
86.5
31.8
USR [8]
98.4*
71.3
DFG [8]
98.7
61.3
State [8]
86.5
31.8
SUB-GROUP DATA
Special Education: 3rd – 5th grades
Grade/
Subject
Partial
Proficiency
Total Proficiency
Total Proficiency
(DFG)
Total Proficiency
(State)
3rd
LAL
25.0
75.0
63.5
38.5
3rd
Math
9.1
90.9
77.7
54.8
4th
LAL
41.4
58.6
59.5
31.9
4th
Math
17.2
82.8
76.5
52.6
4th
Science
3.4
96.6
90.9
47.3
5th
LAL
51.4
48.6
59.3
29.5
5th
Math
37.1
62.9
76.2
53.6
Special Education: 6th-8th grades
Grade/
Subject
Partial
Proficiency
Total Proficiency
Total Proficiency
(DFG)
Total Proficiency
(State)
6th
LAL
44.8
55.1
58.0
29.0
6th
Math
20.7
79.3
74.0
46.7
7th
LAL
36.8
63.2
56.5
24.8
7th
Math
26.3
73.7
55.3
29.4
8th
LAL
23.8
76.2
77.4
43.0
8th
Math
38.1
61.9
59.8
32.6
8th
Science
28.6
71.5
79.5
47.3
Asian Subgroup
Language Arts and Math
Language Arts
School
Cluster
Part. Prof.
Prof.
Adv. Prof.
Bogert
62
4.3
63.5
32.2
Cavallini
57
1.7
43.5
54.8
Math
School
Cluster
Part. Prof.
Prof.
Adv. Prof.
Bogert
62
2.9
31.6
65.5
Cavallini
57
0.0
16.0
84.0
HISTORICAL
PERFORMANCE
3-Year Span
Language Arts (General Education)
Historical Perspective
Math (General Education)
Historical Perspective
CONCLUSIONS
Critical Findings
Discussion and Growth
NJ ASK Conclusions (2014)
Critical Findings
❑USR outperformed the DFG
(J) in language arts and
mathematics (advanced
proficiency) in the majority of
grade levels
❑Bogert’s total proficiency
outperformed the DFG in
every area
❑ Cavallini improved
advanced proficiency in
math and LAL
❑Successful implementation
of Connected Math (6 & 7)
Language Arts:
1. Continue with intense focus on curriculum
writing (units of study), K-8 articulation, and
in-service staff development
2. Continue partnership with TCRWP
1. On-site PD
2. Conference Days
3. Principal Leadership Group
3. Focused SGOs
4. Targeted PD for special education
teachers
5. Quad-district writing articulation (K-8)
Mathematics:
6. Implementation of Connected Math (8),
teacher workshops, and in-service staff
development and coaching
7. Support of elementary mathematics
instruction-alignment to the Common Core
and PARCC
8. Focused SGOs
9. Targeted PD for special education
teachers
PARCC ASSESSMENT
PARCC Snapshot:
Performance-based nature of assessment [context,
multiple skills, problem solving]
2. Technology-enhanced tasks
3. Multiple responses versus multiple choice
4. Evidence-based claims
1.
ELA PARCC
Sample
Grade 4
ELA PARCC
Sample
Grade 7
Math PARCC
Sample Question
Grade 3
PARCC Preparation
1. Summer PARCC
Institute
2. “Walk in the PARCC PD
Series” in all buildings
3. Revise assessment
items to reflect
technologyenhancement and
multiple responses
4. Incorporate performance
based tasks throughout
instruction
Task created at
PARCC Institute
PARCC Assessments
Part I: Performance-Based Assessment (3-5)
March 2 – 27, 2015
Part II: End of Year Assessment (3-5)
April 27 – May 22, 2015
NJASK - Science
May 27th (4 & 8)
State Implementation Timeline