Career Readiness FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS OCTOBER 24, - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

STATE ASSESSMENT PRESENTATION 2015-2016 Measuring College and Career Readiness FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS OCTOBER 24, 2016 1

INSTRUCTIONAL VISION Franklin Township Public Schools staff and students will participate in a reflective and shared process to ensure ownership for learning. All students will engage in meaningful, data-driven and individualized instruction in a caring and collaborative learning community that fosters college and career readiness and social/emotional development. 2

NEW JERSEY’S STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM  2016 marks the 2 nd administration of the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the first opportunity to compare year-to-year results as the following slides will show.  Students took PARCC English Language Arts and Literacy Assessments (ELA/L) in grades 3 – 11.  Students took PARCC Mathematics Assessments in grades 3 – 8 and End of Course Assessments in Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II. 3

PARCC PERFORMANCE LEVELS  Level 1: Not yet meeting grade-level expectations  Level 2: Partially meeting grade-level expectations  Level 3: Approaching grade-level expectations  Level 4: Meeting grade-level expectations  Level 5: Exceeding grade-level expectations 4

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS / LITERACY FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS / LITERACY 5

COMPARISON OF FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS SPRING 2015 AND SPRING 2016 PARCC ADMINISTRATIONS ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY Not Yet Meeting Partially Meeting Approaching Meeting Exceeding Expectations Expectations Expectations Expectations Expectations (Level 1) (Level 2) (Level 3) (Level 4) (Level 5) 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 Grade de 3 23% 22% 22% 22% 17% 24% 23% 23% 28% 34% 34% 3% 4% 4% Grade de 4 12% 9% 9% 17% 19% 19% 29% 28% 28% 32% 36% 36% 9% 8% 8% Grade de 5 10% 9% 9% 19% 19% 19% 31% 26% 26% 35% 40% 40% 4% 6% 6% Grade de 6 13% 7% 7% 18% 21% 26% 27% 37% 37% 6% 8% 8% Grade de 7 20% 19% 19% 22% 17% 25% 22% 22% 26% 29% 29% 7% 13% Grade de 8 20% 12% 20% 17% 24% 26% 26% 30% 35% 35% 6% 10% Grade de 9 22% 23% 23% 22% 19% 19% 21% 21% 26% 28% 28% 8% 9% 9% Grade de 10 26% 16% 20% 10% 19% 21% 26% 37% 9% 16% Grade de 11* 15% 19% 19% 20% 17% 28% 21% 30% 32% 32% 6% 11% 11% *Grade 11 does not include students who took an AP/IB test. 6

FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2015 / 2016 SPRING PARCC SCHOOL VS STATE PROFICIENCY ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY % > Level 4 % > Level 4 FTPS State 2015 2016 2015 2016 Grade e 3 31% 38% 38% 44% 48% 48% Grade e 4 41% 43% 43% 51% 54% Grade e 5 39% 46% 46% 51% 53% 53% Grade e 6 43% 46% 46% 49% 52% 52% Grade e 7 33% 41% 52% 56% 56% Grade e 8 36% 45% 45% 51% 55% 55% Grade e 9 34% 37% 39% 49% 49% Grade e 10 10 35% 52% 52% 36% 43% 43% Grade 11 11 36% 42% 42% 41% 39% 39% 7

COMPARISON OF FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2015-2016 SPRING PARCC ADMINISTRATIONS ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY % Change nge in Level vel 1 and Leve vel 2 % Change nge in Level vel 4 and Leve vel 5 Franklin Township Franklin Township State State Public Schools Public Schools Grade de 3 7.0% 4.1% Grade de 3 6.0% 3.4% Grade de 4 0.1% 0.6% Grade de 4 3.0% 0% 2.4% Grade de 5 7.0% 1.7% Grade de 5 0.1% 0.9% Grade de 6 3.0% 3.5% Grade de 6 3.0% 1.9% Grade de 7 7.0% 0% 4.7% Grade de 7 3.0% 3.3% Grade de 8 9.0% 3.6% Grade de 8 10.0% .0% 3.0% Grade de 9 2.0% 9.2% Grade de 9 2.0% 8.7% Grade de 10 17.0% 7.7% Grade de 10 19.0% .0% 7.8% 1.0% 1.1% 7.0% 0.9% Grade 11* 1* Grade 11* *Grade 11 does not include students who took an AP/IB test. - An up arrow indicates an increase of the % change from the previous year where a down arrow shows a decrease of the % change from the previous year. 8

FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2016 SPRING PARCC ADMINISTRATIONS DISTRICT - SUBGROUPS ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3-11) Count t Pa Partial ally District t % District t % Not Yet Approac achi hing ng Meeti eting ng Excee ceeding ng of Valid Meeting ng ≥ Level 4 ≥ Level 4 Meeti eting ng Expect ctat ations ns Expect ctat ations ns Expect ctat ation Test (Level evel 1) 1) (Level 2) (Level evel 3) (Level evel 4) (Level evel 5) 2016 2015 Scores Hispanic or 1,437 21.2% 21.0% 25.1% 30.0% 5.7% 35.7% 22% 22% Latino 670 3.3% 6.0% 15.4% 50.0% 25.4% 75.4% 69% 69% Asian Black or 1,898 18.2% 21.0% 25.1% 30.0% 5.7% 35.7% 29% 29% African American 623 7.1% 9.8% 18.3% 47.8% 17.0% 64.8% 56% 56% White Two or More 55 14.6% 20.0% 21.8% 36.4% 7.3% 43.7% 45% 45% Races English 198 55.0% 28.8% 11.6% 4.5% 0.0% 4.5% 4% 4% Language Learner Economically 2,195 21.3% 22.8% 27.0% 25.2% 3.6% 28.8% 23% 23% Disadvantaged Students with 857 39.1% 28.2% 20.6% 10.3% 1.7% 12% 10% Disabilities 9

QUESTIONS TO GUIDE PARCC DATA REFLECTION  How will we use PARCC data to identify strengths and gaps that exist in our curriculum and instruction?  How will we use PARCC data as a tool to address areas in need of improvement or enhancement?  How can we provide additional resources and support for our educators to meet the learning needs of all our students? 10

ELA INTERVENTIONS In K-4: 4:  Infusing high quality PD and materials to address foundational reading standards, including phonics and word recognition.  Using Orton-Gillingham in special education settings as needed.  Developing and using more rigorous assessments that align to PARCC, including i-Ready Standards Mastery and local benchmarks that require students to respond to two texts simultaneously as well as to write fan-fiction rather than personal or invented narratives exclusively. 11

ELA INTERVENTIONS In 5-8: 8:  Continued professional development in using data effectively to address NJSLS ELA standards.  Realigned curriculum in instructional support courses. In 9-12:  ELA Instructional Lab curriculum is used to individualize and target instruction.  Using Grapple protocols to analyze PARCC data, including evidence statements, practice/released items, and district common assessments. 12

ELA INTERVENTIONS 9-12 Continued:  Utilizing revisions to Learning Strategies curriculum to enable 9 th graders to build confidence about and ownership of their learning.  Involving teachers in opportunities to engage in Instructional Rounds to identify “problems of practice” and make adjustments in instruction as a result. 13

MATHEMATICS FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS MATHEMATICS 14

COMPARISON OF FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS SPRING 2015 AND SPRING 2016 PARCC ADMINISTRATIONS MATHEMATICS Not Yet Meeting Partially Meeting Approaching Meeting Exceeding Expectations Expectations Expectations Expectations Expectations (Level 1) (Level 2) (Level 3) (Level 4) (Level 5) 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 Grade de 3 10% 12% 20% 15% 15% 26% 23% 23% 37% 35% 35% 7% 14% Grade de 4 6% 9% 9% 23% 19% 19% 27% 27% 38% 38% 38% 5% 6% 6% Grade de 5 4% 6% 6% 28% 19% 19% 34% 27% 31% 38% 38% 4% 10% Grade de 6 9% 9% 9% 27% 26% 26% 31% 29% 29% 29% 29% 29% 3% 6% 6% Grade de 7 10% 12% 23% 25% 25% 35% 34% 34% 29% 28% 28% 3% 1% 1% Grade de 8* 19% 17% 26% 27% 30% 31% 25% 24% 1% 1% 1% Grade de 8 – 1% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 4% 1% 1% 82% 79% 79% 11% 20% 20% Alg lgeb ebra ra I Alg lgeb ebra ra I 21% 18% 32% 26% 26% 31% 28% 28% 14% 28% 28% 0% 0% 0% Alg lgeb ebra ra II II 29% 33% 33% 35% 22% 22% 33% 19% 19% 17% 22% 22% 3% 4% 4% Geome metr try 11% 9% 9% 27% 31% 21% 36% 36% 21% 21% 1% 3% 3% *Some students in grade 8 participated in the PARCC Algebra I assessment in place of the 8 th grade Math assessment. Thus, PARCC Math 8 outcomes are not representative of grade 8 performance as a whole. 15

FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2015 / 2016 SPRING PARCC SCHOOL VS STATE PROFICIENCY MATHEMATICS % > Level 4 % > Level 4 FTPS State 2015 2016 2015 2016 Grade de 3 44% 50% 50% 45% 52% 52% Grade de 4 43% 44% 44% 40% 47% Grade de 5 35% 48% 48% 41% 47% Grade de 6 32% 35% 35% 41% 43% 43% Grade de 7 32% 29% 29% 37% 39% 39% Grade de 8 26% 25% 25% 24% 26% 26% Alg lgeb ebra ra I – Grad ade 8 93% 99% 99% 36% 41% Alg lgebra bra I 14% 27% Geome metr try 20% 25% 25% 23% 25% 25% Alg lgeb ebra ra II II 22% 24% 24% 27% 16