PARCC RESULTS: YEAR THREE Measuring College and Career Readiness - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
PARCC RESULTS: YEAR THREE Measuring College and Career Readiness MOUNTAINSIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2017 OVERVIEW LAL 2017 RESULTS The first three slides show the 2017 PARCC Language Arts Literacy results as compared with
Measuring College and Career Readiness
The first three slides show the 2017 PARCC Language Arts Literacy results as compared with New Jersey students, and all states across the country that took the PARCC. The first two slides, grouped 3-5 and 6-8, are the 2017 results. Cohort Analysis The third slide is the color-coded cohort analysis (how the same group of students did from year to year).
2
Not
Meet eting (Lev evel el 1 1) 650 650--699 Parti tially ly (Lev evel el Meetin ting 2 g 2) 700 700--724 24 Appro roaching Expec ectat ations (Lev evel el 3 3) 725 725--74 749 Meetin ting g Expec ectat ations (Lev evel el 4 4) 750 750-789 Exc xceeding Expec ectat ations (Lev evel el 5) 5) 790 790 & & above Highest Score
Grade 3 e 3--
SD
1.2% 16.5% 29.4% 47. 7.1% 5.9% 52.9%
Grade 3 NJ
13.5% 15.9% 23% 41 41.3% 6.2% 44.9%
Grade 3 PARCC
18.6% 18.4% 23.3% 35.5% 4.2% 39.7%
Grade 4 e 4--
DS
3% 4.5% 24.2% 56.1% 12.1% 68.2%
Grade 4 NJ
7. 7.7% 12.8% 23.7% 40.5% 15.3% 55.9%
Grade 4 PARCC
12.8% 18.2% 26.4% 33.7% 8.9% 42.6%
Grade 5 e 5--
3.2% 6.3% 20% 62.1% 8.4% 70. 70.5% 5%
Grade 5 NJ
6.8% 12.2% 22.1% 48.2% 10.7% 59% 59%
Grade 5 PARCC
11.9% 18.5% 25.9% 38.4% 5.3% 43. 43.7% 7%
2017 MOUNTAINSIDE, NEW JERSEY, & PARCC GRADE-LEVEL OUTCOMES ELA GRADES 3-5
3
Not Ye Yet Meet eting (Level evel 1) 1) Partia ially lly Meet eting (Level evel 2 2) Appr pproa
Expec ectations (Level evel 3 3) Meet eting Expec ectations (Level evel 4 4) Exceed eeding Expec ectation (Level evel 5 5) Dis Distric ict % % >= >= Leve evel 4 4
Grade 6 e 6--
SD
1.4% 4.2% 25.4% 50.7% 18.3% 69%
Grade 6 NJ
6.5% 14.6% 25.6% 41 41% 12.3% 53.4%
Grade 6 PARCC
10.6% 20.9% 28.5% 33.5% 6.5% 40%
Grade 7 e 7--
SD
1.1% 2.2% 17. 7.4% 46.7% 32.6% 79.3%
Grade 7 NJ
8.9% 11.4% 20.5% 35.4% 23.8% 59.2%
Grade 7 PARCC
14.3% 16.6% 24.3% 30.8% 14% 44.8%
Grade 8 e 8--
SD
3.2% 1.6% 21% 58.1% 16.1% 74 74.2%
Grade 8 NJ
9% 11.6% 20.3% 40.5% 18.6% 59.1%
Grade 8 PARCC
15.3% 17. 7.7% 23.9% 33.5% 9.6% 43.1% 2017 MOUNTAINSIDE, NEW JERSEY, & PARCC GRADE-LEVEL OUTCOMES ELA GRADES 6-8
4
EL ELA # of s
20 2015 15 2016 2017 17
Grade 3
Levels 1 & 2 (22 students) 23.4% Level 3 (17 students) 18.1% Levels 4 & 5 (55 students) 58.5% Levels 1 & 2 (18 students) 26.5% Level 3 (19 students) 27.9% Levels 4 & 5 (31 students) 45.6% Levels 1 & 2 (15 students) 17.7% Level 3 (25 students) 29.4% Levels 4 & 5 (45 students) 53%
Grade 4
Levels 1 & 2 (7 students) 9.6% Level 3 (17 students) 23.3% Levels 4 & 5 (49 students) 67.1% Levels 1 & 2 (9 students) 9.1% Level 3 (29 students) 29.6% Levels 4 & 5 (60 students) 61.2% Levels 1 & 2 (5 students) 7.5% Level 3 (16 students) 24.2% Levels 4 & 5 (45 students) 68.2%
Grade 5
Levels 1 & 2 (6 students) 6.7% Level 3 (23 students) 25.6% Levels 4 & 5 (61 students) 67.8% Levels 1 & 2 (5 students) 7.1% Level 3 (17 students) 24.3% Levels 4 & 5 (48 students) 68.6% Levels 1 & 2 (9 students) 9.5% Level 3 (19 students) 20% Levels 4 & 5 (67 students) 70.5%
Grade 6
Levels 1 & 2 (6 students) 9.5% Level 3 (21 students) 33.3% Levels 4 & 5 (36 students) 57.2% Levels 1 & 2 (8 students) 8.6% Level 3 (25 students) 26.9% Levels 4 & 5 (60 students) 64.5% Levels 1 & 2 (4 students) 5.6% Level 3 (18 students) 25.4% Levels 4 & 5 (49 students) 69%
Grade 7
Levels 1 & 2 (9 students) 9.7% Level 3 (18 students) 19.4% Levels 4 & 5 (66 students) 70.9% Levels 1 & 2 (6 students) 10.2% Level 3 (11 students) 18.6% Levels 4 & 5 (42 students) 71.2% Levels 1 & 2 (3 students) 3.3% Level 3 (16 students) 17.4% Levels 4 & 5 (73 students) 79.3%
Grade 8
Levels 1 & 2 (9 students) 10.6% Level 3 (28 students) 32.9% Levels 4 & 5 (48 students) 56.5% Levels 1 & 2 (15 students) 15.9% Level 3 (20 students) 21.3% Levels 4 & 5 (59 students) 62.8% Levels 1 & 2 (3 students) 4.8% Level 3 (13 students) 21% Levels 4 & 5 (46 students) 74.2%
’1 ’15 ’1 ’16 ‘1 ‘17
90 70 95 94 68 85 98 73 71 66 93 92 63 59 62 85 93 94 5
Overall our Language Arts program (primarily Teachers College Readers and Writers) has improved students’ reading and writing skills over the last three years Every cohort improved from 2016 to 2017 PROGRAM ANALYSIS The next two slides look at different groups (highest and lowest performers) over three years
6
(STUDENTS WHO SCORED 1/2)
201 015 201 016 2017 17 ELA 3 23.4 % (22 students) 26.5% (18 students) 17.7% (15 students) ELA 4 9.6% (7 students) 9.1% (9 students) 7.5% (5 students) ELA 5 6.7% (6 students) 7.1% (5 students) 9.5% (9 students) ELA 6 9.5% (6 students) 8.6% (8 students) 5.6% (4 students) ELA 7 9.7% (9 students) 10.2% (6 students) 3.3% (3 students) ELA 8 10.6% (9 students) 15.9% (15 students) 4.8% (3 students)
7
(STUDENTS WHO SCORED 4/5)
201 015 201 016 2017 17 ELA 3 58.5% (94 students) 45.6% (68 students) 53% (85 students) ELA 4 67.1% (73 students) 61.2% (67 students) 68.2% (66 students) ELA 5 67.8 % (90 students) 68.6% (70 students) 70.5% (95 students) 2015 2016 2017 ELA 6 57.2% (63 students) 64.5% (93 students) 69% (71 students) ELA 7 70.9% (93 students) 71.1% (59 students) 79.3% (92 students) ELA 8 56.5% (85 students) 62.8% (94 students) 74.2% (62 students)
8
Overall there has been improvement across all grade levels
4 or 5
Program Needs – Some grade levels consistently performing better than others
General LAL Recommendations
students’ skills before they enter 3rd grade
levels
9
GRADES 6-8 LANGUAGE ARTS 2017-2018 – A CLOSER LOOK – TWO MAJOR AREAS
Re Reading - (Literar ary A Anal alysis, , Infor
ation
al text, V , Vocab abular ary i in context) Writi ting – (Written Express ssion, Convent entions ns) Need fo for I Increase sed I Instr tructi tion i in:
ding Voca cabu bulary (gra rade des 4 4-8) )
g Expression a and Conventions ( (gr grades 3 3)
Note: As s students p ts progress t s through t the g grade l levels, s, w writi ting becom
a strength. ( . (Con
, as as assessed o
PARCC, are n not
an a area o
f weakness fo ss for middle s school s stu tudents. s.) Close R Read ading strat ategies incor
ated i in a all s subject a areas as
itic ical t to develo lopin ing m g meanin ing in g in context
inference an and an anal alyzing c complex x text xts s - requires abilit ility t to determine m mean aning in context xt
10
The next three slides show the 2017 PARCC Math results as compared with New Jersey students, and all states across the country that took the PARCC. The first two slides, grouped 3-5 and 6-8, are the 2017 results. Please note the 7th and 8th grade reflect only the general math results The third slide reflects the 7th and 8th grade students who took Algebra and Geometry Cohort Analysis The fourth slide is the color-coded cohort analysis (how the same group of students did from year to year).
11
Not Ye Yet Meet eting (Level evel 1) 1) Partia ially lly Meet eting (Level evel 2 2) Appr pproa
Expec ectations (Level evel 3 3) Meet eting Expec ectations (Level evel 4 4) Exceed eeding Expec ectation (Level evel 5 5) Dis Distric ict % % >= >= Leve evel 4 4
Grade 3 e 3
1.2% 9.4% 25.9% 48.2% 15.3% 63.5%
Grade 3 NJ
7. 7.8% 14.6% 25.1% 38.7% 13.7% 52.5%
Grade 3 PARCC
12.9% 18.4% 26.1% 32.5% 10% 42.5%
Grade 4 e 4
1.5% 7. 7.6% 25.8% 53% 12.1% 65.2%
Grade 4 NJ
8.1% 17. 7.5% 27. 7.1% 40.6% 6.7% 47. 7.3%
Grade 4 PARCC
13.9% 22.9% 27. 7.5% 31.7% 4.2% 35.8%
Grade 5 e 5
4.2% 8.4% 13.7% 54.7% 18.9% 73.7%
Grade 5 NJ
6.5% 17. 7.8% 29.6% 37. 7.3% 8.9% 46.2%
Grade 5 PARC
12% 23.7% 29.6% 29.2% 5.5% 34.7% 2017 MOUNTAINSIDE, NEW JERSEY, & PARCC GRADE-LEVEL OUTCOMES MATH GRADES 3-5
12
Not Ye Yet Meet eting (Level evel 1) 1) Partia ially lly Meet eting (Level evel 2 2) Appr pproa
Expec ectations (Level evel 3 3) Meet eting Expec ectations (Level evel 4 4) Exceed eeding Expec ectation (Level evel 5 5) Dis Distric ict % % >= >= Leve evel 4 4
Grade 6 e 6
4.3% 10% 28.6% 50% 7. 7.1% 57.1%
Grade 6 NJ
9.7% 19.1% 27. 7.7% 35% 8.6% 43.6%
Grade 6 Parcc
15.1% 24.3% 28.4% 27. 7.1% 5.2% 32.2%
Grade 7 e 7 *
1.2% 13.6% 34.6% 49.4% 1.2% 50.6%
Grade 7 NJ
8% 19.9% 32.4% 33.9% 5.7% 39.6%
Grade 7 Parcc
11.7% 26% 33.5% 25.5% 3.3% 28.8%
Gr Grade 8 8 *
14.7% 20.6% 41 41.2% 23.5% 0% 23.5%
Grade 8 NJ
22.9% 21.4% 28% 26.9% 0.8% 27. 7.7%
Grade 8 Parcc
27. 7.5% 22.3% 24.5% 23.2% 2.5% 25.7% 2017 MOUNTAINSIDE, NEW JERSEY, & PARCC GRADE-LEVEL OUTCOMES MATH GRADES 6-8
*Note: Math 7 & 8 outcomes are not representative of grade level performance as a whole because so many of our students enroll in Algebra I and Geometry
13
Not Ye Yet Meet eting (Level evel 1) 1) Partia ially lly Meet eting (Level evel 2 2) Appr pproa
Expec ectations (Level evel 3 3) Meet eting Expec ectations (Level evel 4 4) Exceed eeding Expec ectation (Level evel 5 5) School
% >= Leve evel 4 4
Algebr ebra I (7 (7 & 8) 8)
0% 0% 0% 0% 9.7% 9.7% 87. 7.1% 3.2% 3.2% 90.3%
Algebra I NJ
12.2% 2.2% 22. 22.1% 1% 24.2% 4.2% 36.9% 36.9% 4.5% 4.5% 41.4% .4%
Algebra I PARCC
14.4% 4.4% 25. 25.1% 1% 24.8% 4.8% 32.6% 32.6% 3.2% 3.2% 35.8% 35.8%
Geometr try
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 66.7% 66.7% 33.3% 33.3% 100%
Geometry NJ
10 10% 29% 29% 31.3% .3% 25.8% 25.8% 4% 4% 29.7% 29.7%
Geometry PARCC
9.7% 9.7% 28. 28.1% 1% 30.7% 30.7% 27.6% .6% 4% 4% 31.6% .6%
2017 MOUNTAINSIDE, NEW JERSEY, & PARCC GRADE-LEVEL OUTCOMES ALGEBRA/GEOMETRY
14
PARCC MATH WHOLE CLASS ANALYSIS
(WITH ALGEBRA AND GEOMETRY)
15
Many districts choose to report all math students in grades 7-8 (general math, Algebra and Geometry) as one cohort (see previous slide) How
, we feel t that at t this method
doe
not
provide e enou
inform rmation n about o
r stru ruggl ggling m ng math h student ents In the next slide (without Algebra and Geometry) you will notice that there are significantly fewer 7th & 8th grade math students This is because in this cohort approximately 50% of our math students were advanced into Algebra and Geometry Note: Algebra and Geometry results will be analyzed in the slide that follows the next one
16
MAT ATH # of s
20 2015 15 2016 2017 17
Grade 3
Levels 1 & 2 (12 students) 12.2% Level 3 (17 students) 17.3% Levels 4 & 5 (69 students) 70.4% Levels 1 & 2 (7 students) 10.5% Level 3 (17 students) 25.4% Levels 4 & 5 (43 students) 64.1% Levels 1 & 2 (9 students) 10.6% Level 3 (22 students) 25.9% Levels 4 & 5 (54 students) 63.5%
Grade 4 e 4
Levels 1 & 2 (5 students) 6.8% Level 3 (27 students) 37% Levels 4 & 5 (41 students) 56.2% Levels 1 & 2 (8 students) 8.1% Level 3 (23 students) 23.5% Levels 4 & 5 (67 students) 68.4% Levels 1 & 2 (6 students) 9.1% Level 3 (17 students) 25.8% Levels 4 & 5 (43 students) 65.1%
Grade 5 e 5
Levels 1 & 2 (6 students) 6.7% Level 3 (34 students) 38.2% Levels 4 & 5 (49 students) 55% Levels 1 & 2 (5 students) 7.1% Level 3 (21 students) 30% Levels 4 & 5 (44 students) 62.8% Levels 1 & 2 (12 students) 12.6% Level 3 (13 students) 13.7% Levels 4 & 5 (70 students) 73.6%
Grade 6 e 6
Levels 1 & 2 (14 students) 21.9% Level 3 (22 students) 34.4% Levels 4 & 5 (28 students) 43.7% Levels 1 & 2 (19 students) 20.7% Level 3 (34 students) 37% Levels 4 & 5 (39 students) 42.4% Levels 1 & 2 (10 students) 14.3% Level 3 (20 students) 28.6% Levels 4 & 5 (40 students) 57.1%
Grade 7 e 7
Levels 1 & 2 (15 students) 21.7% Level 3 (29 students) 42% Levels 4 & 5 (25 students) 36.2% Levels 1 & 2 (15 students) 30% Level 3 (18 students) 36% Levels 4 & 5 (17 students) 34% Levels 1 &2 (12 students) 14.8% Level 3 (28 students) 34.6% Levels 4 & 5 (41 students) 50.6%
Grade 8 e 8
Levels 1 & 2 (16 students) 40% Level 3 (14 students) 35% Levels 4 & 5 (10 students) 25% Levels 1 & 2 (24 students) 53.3% Level 3 (15 students) 33.3% Levels 4 & 5 (6 students) 13.3% Levels 1 & 2 (12 students) 35.3% Level 3 (14 students) 41.2% Levels 4 & 5 (8 students) 23.5%
PARCC CC MAT ATH COHORT ANALY LYSIS
(WITHOUT ALGEBRA/GEOMETRY)
69 45 40 34 64 50 89 92 81 66 73 70 98 98 95 67 85 70 17
Alg lgebra # of s
20 2015 15 2016 2017 17
Levels 1 & 2 (5 students) 7.8% Level 3 (7 students) 33.3 % Levels 4 & 5 (29 students) 56.9% Levels 1 & 2 (1 students) 2.9% Level 3 (3 students) 8.8% Levels 4 & 5 (30 students) 88.2% Levels 1 & 2 (0 students) 0% Level 3 (3 students) 9.7% Levels 4 & 5 (28 students) 90.3 %
Ge Geometry # of s
2015 2016 2017
Levels 1 & 2 (0 students) 0% Level 3 (2 students) 10.5% Levels 4 & 5 (17 students) 89.5% Levels 1 & 2 (0 students) 0% Level 3 (3 students)12.5% Levels 4 & 5 (21 students) 87.5% Levels 1 & 2 (0 students) 0% Level 3 (0 students) 0% Levels 4 & 5 (9 students) 100%
Grade
‘15 ‘16 ‘17 6 1 1 7 24 9 11 8 24 24 20 Gr Grad e ’15 ’16 ‘17 7 1 8 19 24 8
18
Overall there was improvement in grades 3 to 4, 4 to 5, 5 to 6, and 7 to 8 (in Algebra and Geometry) We have identified a decrease in grades 5 to 6 and in 7 to 8 general math Program Analysis The next two slides look at different groups of students (highest and lowest performers) over three years
19
(STUDENTS WHO SCORED 1/2)
201 015 201 016 2017 17
Math 3
12.2% (12 students) 10.5% (7 students) 10.6% (9 students)
Math 4
6.8% (5 students) 8.1% (8 students) 9.1% (6 students)
Math 5
6.7% (6 students) 7.1% (5 students) 12.6% (12
students)
Math 6
21.9% (14 students) 20.7% (19 students) 14.3% (10
students)
Math 7
21.7% (15 students) 30% (15 students) 14.8% (12
students)
Math 8
40% (16 students) 53.3% (24 students) 35.3% (12 students)
20
(STUDENTS WHO SCORED 1/2)
Algebra
(7th & 8th Grade Levels)
9.8% (5 students) 2.9% (1 student) 0% Geometry
(8th Grade)
0% 0% 0%
21
20 2015 15 201 016 2017 17 Ma Math th 3 3 70. 70.4% ( (98 s 98 students) 64.1% ( (67 s students) s) 63.5% (85 students) Ma Math th 4 4 56. 56.2% ( (73 73 studen ents) 68. 68.4% (98 s studen ents) 65.1% (66 students) Ma Math th 5 5 55% 55% (89 s students) s) 62. 62.8% ( (70 s 70 students) 73.6% (95 students) 20 2015 15 201 016 2017 Ma Math th 6 6 43. 43.7% ( (64 s 64 students) 42. 42.4% ( (92 s 92 students) 57.1% (70 students) Ma Math th 7 36. 36.2% ( (69 69 studen ents) 34% 34% (50 50 s students) 50.6% (81 students) Ma Math th 8 8 25% 25% (40 40 s students) 13.3% ( (45 s students) s) 23.5% (34 students) 20 2015 15 201 016 2017 Al Algebra I I (7 & 7 & 8) 8) 56.8% ( (51 s stude dents) s) 88. 88.3% ( (34 34 studen ents) 90.3% (31 students) Geometry 89. 89.5% ( (19 s 19 students) 87.5% ( (24 students) s) 100% (9 students) 20 2015 15 201 016 2017 Total M Math G
. 7 47.3% ( (44 studen ents) 43. 43.3% ( (25 s 25 students) 55.9% (52 students) Total M Math G
. 8 45. 45.2% (30 s studen ents) 51.6% (48 s studen ents) 54.8% (34 students
(Students who scored 4/5)
22
Math students in grades 6, 7, and 8 who were targeted last spring showed significant improvement Students in grades 5-8 showed an increase in levels 4 and 5 Grade 5 students – while the passing rate increased, the failing rate slightly increased also Grades 3-4 did not grow We need to address these weaknesses in our program
23
24
GRADES 6-8 MATH SPRING 2017
A CLOSER LOOK CURRICULUM ANALYZED USING 201 016 PARCC AND MAP RESULTS
We made t de these c ese changes es:
Adjusted scope and sequence to ensure instruction in concepts before the administration of PARCC (Reorder instructional units, Enhance instruction in weaker areas of curriculum) Provided additional instruction in OP classes Targeted specific curriculum standards for improvement in grade 7 (Statistics & Probability,Modeling & Reasoning, Geometry) Targeted specific curriculum standards for improvement in grade 8 (Functions,Statistics & Probability, Expressions & Equations,Geometry)
25
GRADES 6-8 MATH 2017-2018
4 FOCUS AREAS OF PARCC MATH
Major jor Co Content - (grade level operations, concepts, and relationships) Supporti ting Co Content – (more complex or in-depth concepts) Rea eason
ing – (mathematical reasoning) Modeling – (real world problems, reasoning abstractly, and quantitatively) Ne Need for Increase ased Instr tructi tion in Rea eason
g and Mod
eling g (gra grades 3 3-8)
26
K-5 Math Teachers aligning the scope and sequence of GO MATH! with the NJ Curriculum Framework
Grad ades: K : K-2 Taking note of the sequence of GO Math! chapters versus content standards from the NJ Curriculum Framework
be addressed prior to entering 3rd grade
students for taking online assessments
Grad ades: 3 : 3-5 Changing the order of the chapters covered in GO Math!
addressed prior to PARCC testing
are taking chapter assessments to prepare for PARCC
27
Compare End of Year grade Math tests to Grade Prerequisite Skills Inventory (math standards/skills that are covered in previous grades) More communication between grade level teachers (up and down) GO MATH! Differences identified between grade levels
More language based Math problems in 3rd grade program Difficulty level and student expectations are elevated Exposure to next grade level concepts when grade level programs are completed
Prioritize close reading for LAL so that skills are transferred to Math
28
GRADES K-8 MATH HOW ARE WE PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR LOW PERFORMING STUDENTS? Grades 6-8
29
GRADES K-8 MATH HOW ARE WE PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR LOW PERFORMING STUDENTS?(CONTINUED) Grades 3-8 AIM (basic skills) program more focused on early identification of students in need and provide assistance
pull out sooner, including work with the Reading Specialist
intensive, skill-based, less language-based program (Math 180 for 6-8)(Do the Math for K-5)
test-taking - focus on Close Reading)
30
GRADES K-8 MATH HOW ARE WE PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR LOW PERFORMING STUDENTS?(CONTINUED)
31
Between Grades 5 and Grade 6 - Reduction in scheduled time spent in math instruction (From approximately 90 minutes to 45 minutes per day) Need to expand time on task either through longer math periods or additional targeted math courses or labs Additional personnel needed to support this expansion
students (excelerated and remedial) and also support teachers
32
33