Presented by: Eveny Pagn Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Presented by: Eveny Pagán Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum & Instruction

2012 State Assessment Presentation w/ Progress Toward District Goals

Special Board Meeting: Thursday, January 10, 2013

• 2012 State Assessment Presentation will be given. To facilitate the

interpretation of the content, the presentation includes and explanation of calculation methods for us to review together.

• After each section, Board members will have the opportunity to

ask clarifying questions. Board Member Review of State Assessment Data: January 11th – 24th

• Board members will have the opportunity to review the data and

forward questions to the administration during this time period.

• Board members will also have the opportunity to meet with the

Superintendent and myself to discuss the report, findings, and /

• r action plans to address priority areas.

Board Meeting: January 24th Questions regarding the 2012 State Assessment Presentation will be answered.

2012 State Assessment Presentation w/ Progress Toward District Goals

Supporting Presentations: January 24, 2013 – April, 2013 Mini-presentations will be made to address specific areas:

• School Level Presentations by Principals

(January – February)

• Science (January)
• School Improvement Plan Overviews for Focus

Schools (February)

• ACCESS for ELLs (March)
• PARCC Assessments (April)

• State Assessment Program
• PARCC Test Specs
• Calculating Annual Progress Targets
• Questions / 5 minute break

Section I: NJ State Assessment Program Overview

• Annual Progress Targets
• Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate

Section II: Franklin High School Performance

• Annual Progress Targets
• Student Growth Profiles
• Cohort Performance Profile
• Progress Toward District Goals (LAL / Math)

Section III: Grades 5-8 School Performance

• Annual Progress Targets
• Student Growth Profiles
• Cohort Performance Profile
• Progress Toward District Goals (LAL / Math)

Section IV: Elementary School Performance

New Jersey

Assessment Program Overview”

NJASK 3-8

The NJASK assessment is administered in Language Arts and Mathematics for students in Grades 3-8.

HSPA

First-time eleventh-grade students (11) - March Only Retained eleventh-grade students (R11) Twelfth-grade students (12) Retained twelfth-grade students (R12) Returning students (RS) Adult high school students (AH)

New Jersey Biology Competency Test (NJBCT)

Starting with 2011 administration, the New Jersey End of Course Biology Exam has been renamed the New Jersey Biology Competency Test. The NJBCT is administered to all high school students taking Biology for the first time.

NJDOE, 2012

AHSA

• The Alternative High School Assessment (AHSA)

measures high school competency in selected areas of the Core Curriculum Content Standards.

• It is intended to offer an alternative means of

meeting the state graduation proficiency test requirement.

• The AHSA is available to students who have met

all high school graduation requirements except for demonstrating proficiency in selected areas

• f the Core Curriculum Content Standards.

PARCC

ASSESSMENTS

(2014)

• Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for

College and Careers (PARCC).

• Measurement of Common Core Standards.
• Test Specs.

(NJSA 18A:7c-3 & NJAC 5A:8-4.1)

The Franklin Township School District is in a excellent position to support the PARCC initiative now and going forward. The District recently leased over 4000 state of the art MacBook Air laptops which exceed all specifications as defined by PARCC. Furthermore, the lease provides the facility for the District to always have sufficient funding to maintain current technology ensuring future compliance with PARCC Specifications.

TEST SPECS PARCC REQUIREMENT DISTRICT READINESS HARDWARE

• 1 GB RAM or greater
• 9.5 inch screen size
• 1024 X 768

resolution or better

• Wireless or wired

connectivity

• 4 GB RAM
• 11.5 inch screen size
• Maximum resolution of 1440 X 900
• Full wireless capabilities

OPERATING SYSTEM

Mac OS 10.5 Mac OS 10.8

BROWSER

Not to be defined until October 2013

• All student laptops have most up to

date browser.

• District employees have an automatic

update system to ensure browser is always current.

NETWORK BANDWITH (INTERNET)

100 Kbps per student

• r faster (internal and

external)

• Internally, the district has a wireless

network which provides approximately 100 times the requirement to each student.

• Externally, the district has a 100 Mbps

connection, which equals approximately 100,000 Kbps. This connection exceeds the requirement

• f PARCC.

PARCC ASSESSMENT Test Specs: Are we Ready?

Questi Question

• ns

Re: PARCC Re: PARCC ?

NJDOE: NJSMART Student Growth Percentile Tutorial (2012)

Growth

Secondary Measures

Attendance Rate Graduation Rate

Primary Measures

Annual Progress Targets Closing Achievement Gap

Understanding Annual Progress Targets

Progress Targets

• Calculated for the state, districts, schools

and subgroups based on closing this gap in equal increments each year.

• Set in annual equal increments toward a

goal of reducing by half the percentage of students in the “all students” group and in each subgroup who are not proficient within six years. Baseline Data

• Proficiency rates based on the following

assessments were used as the starting point for setting the Progress Targets.

• Grades 3-8, the NJASK 2010-11
• High School, the HSPA Banked Cohort

2010-2011.

Annual Progress Targets

In addition to meeting progress targets, achievement gaps between (1) the highest and lowest performing subgroups or (2) graduation rates will be a second measure of accountability. A Focus School designation will be assigned when (1) achievement gaps between highest and lowest performing subgroups exceed 43%

• r (2) graduation rates among

particular subgroups.

Closing the Achievement Gap

Closing the Achievement Gap.

For its new accountability system under the ESEA Flexibility Waiver, New Jersey selected the goal of closing half of its achievement gap within six years.

2011 Baseline Data

1

Proficiency Gap

2

Half the Proficiency Gap

3

Annual Increments

4

2017 Proficiency Target

5

Calculating Annual Progress Targets (APT)

BASELINE 1

• 2011 is the Baseline for

calculating APT’s.

Group Baseline 2011 School-wide 90.2% Subgroup A 86.2% Subgroup B 51.6%

 State Proficiency Rate: 90% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Schoolwide Subgroup A Subgroup B

90.2% 51.6% 86.2%

Proficiency Gap

2

• The proficiency gap is the difference

between 100% (all students demonstrating proficiency) and the baseline year (2011).

48.4% 13.8%

Group Baseline 2011 School-wide 90.2% Subgroup A 51.6% Subgroup B 86.2%

95 % (2015)

Half the Proficiency Gap

3

• This represents the growth required to meet the 2017

target.

Annual Increments

4

• The school has 6 years to bring students to the target

proficiency or 90% (whichever is greater). Yearly targets grow by equal increments.

Group Baseline 2011 Proficiency Gap

School-wide 90.2%

• Subgroup A

51.6% 48.4% Subgroup B 86.2% 13.8%

½ Gap

• 24.2%

6.9%

Annual Increment

• 4%

1.2%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Schoolwide 90.2% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% Subgroup A 51.6% 55.6% 59.6% 63.6% 67.6% 71.6% 75.6% Subgroup B 86.2% 87.4% 88.6% 89.8% 91.0% 92.2% 93.4% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

2017 Target

5

• NJDOE defines the target for

the 2017 as baseline plus the annual increment.

Group Baseline Annual Increment 2017 TARGET

School-wide 90.2%

• 90.2%

Subgroup A 51.6% +4% 75.6% Subgroup B 86.2% +1.2% 93.4%

In developing a new accountability system, the Department has created three tiers of schools, which will be identified using both growth and absolute proficiency:

Sampson G. Smith Achievement Gap: Asian Students w/ Disabilities Franklin Middle School Achievement Gap: Asian Students w/Disabilities

Elementary / Secondary Education Act Waiver: Priority, Focus & Reward Schools

Priority Schools

• Lowest-

performing five percent of Title I schools across the state identified using proficiency, grow th, and graduation rates.

Focus Schools

• At least 10 percent
• f Title I schools

identified as Focus Schools

• Identified based

upon: (1) achievement gaps between subgroups and low performance exceed 43% or (2) graduation rates among particular subgroups.

Reward Schools

• Identified based
• n high

proficiency levels

• r high levels of

growth, including progress toward closing achievement gaps.

• Allows for a

range of schools from across the state to attain reward status, regardless

• f their absolute

starting point.

2012 NJ State Assessment Results

James Bevere, Principal

Subgroup 2011 Baseline % Proficient School-wide 90.2 White 94.9 African-American 86.2 Latino 86 Asian 98.1 Students w/ Disab 51.6 Econ Disadvantaged 86.2

Franklin High School 2012 Annual Progress Targets LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY

Yearly Increment

• 1.2

1.2

• 4

1.2 2012 Target 90 90 87.4 87.2 90 55.6 87.4

2012 % Proficient

89.9 93.3 90.7 77.3 98.3 52.3 85.6

• White
• African-American
• Asian

Met Goal

• School-wide
• Students w/ Disabilities
• Econ Disadvantaged

Met Progress Targets w/ Interval

• Latino

Missed Targets

Subgroup 2011 Baseline % Proficient School-wide 80.6 White 90.4 African-American 72.1 Latino 72 Asian 98.1 Students w/Disab 30.6 Econ Disadvantaged 69.3

Franklin High School 2012 Annual Progress Targets MATHEMATICS

Yearly Increment 1.6

• 2.3

2.4

• 5.8

2.6 2012 Target 82.2 90 74.4 74.4 90 36.4 71.9

2012 % Proficient

78.7 88.9 74.6 63.2 96.6 30.9 73.7

• Asian

Met Goal

• African-American
• Econ Disadvantaged

Met Progress Targets

• School-wide
• White
• Students w/ Disabilities

Met Progress Targets w/ Interval

• Latino

Missed Targets

FHS State 2011 90.2% 90.3% 2012 89.9% 92.7% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Language Arts

FHS State 2011 80.6% 76.0% 2012 78.7% 83.3% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Math

Franklin Township Public Schools Franklin High School / State of New Jersey HSPA: Over 2 Years

High School Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate Formula (Effective 2011)

4 year cohort graduates in year 2012 (1st time 9th graders in 2009) + (transfers in) – (verified transfers out) – (excluded from cohort)

 Transfer in – active cohort students who have

transferred into the district and have been added to the adjusted cohort.

 Transferred out unverified – students who have

transferred out but were never reactivated by another district or state institution. Thus, the student remains in the original district’s cohort and is considered a non-graduate in the rate

• calculation. A transfer out is not removed from the
• riginal district until he/she is activated by

another district.

High School Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate Formula Definitions

Source: NJDOE 2011

 On-Track Continuing – active students who are

considered on track to graduate in four years. Each submission, active students’ cohort status is updated based on their submitted grade

• level. If the student progresses as

expected, they will remain ‘on-track’ until they graduate.

 Off-Track Continuing – active cohort students

who, while still attending, are not progressing through grade levels as expected and are considered ‘off track’ to graduate in four years.

High School Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate Formula Definitions

Source: NJDOE 2011

 Dropout– students who have dropped out of

school for various reasons.

 Excluded from Cohort – exemptions not

included in adjusted cohort rate (death of student, transfer to a non-public school or country, transfer to parental instruction, transfer to a private facility.

High School Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate Formula Definitions

Source: NJDOE 2011

2012 Franklin High School Adjusted Cohort Graduation 4 Year Rate

9

• On Track

Continuing

36

• Off Track

Continuing

24

• Transferred

Out

11

• Dropouts

437

• 4 Year

Cohort Graduates 2012

2012 84.5% 2011 82.4% Adjusted Cohort Count

517

 Use of district attendance officer

to improve individual student

• attendance. This officer can

identify potential truancy issues, attend court hearings, as well as identify students that may have left district without properly withdrawing or maybe attending Franklin and are non-residents.

 Sending letter home to parents

that have missed 4, 11 and 18

• classes. These letters also allow

us to create individualized attendance plans for students in danger of losing credit.

 Refocused efforts on the I&RS

• process. We have held several PD

sessions with the faculty on how the process will help identify kids that are off track continuing. We have designated a standing committee that meets regularly to discuss individual cases.

In a pursuit of our goal to increase our graduation rate, we are using the following student based practices:

 Audited all transcripts. Each

counselor has met with their 11th and 12th grade student to review their transcript and on track with their graduation

• cohort. This will make sure all

transcripts are up to date and accurate.

 Students are utilizing the

Naviance system to track their college and career readiness. This online system allows student to identify areas of strengths and areas that require focus for post graduation years.

 Students not on track with their

cohort will be given the option to take part in the new APEX credit recovery system. Up to 100 licenses are available to 12th graders to recover credit to get them back on track to graduate with their cohort. Remaining slots can be filled by senior students and 11th graders to ensure on track graduation.

 Enrolled students in the LEAD

• Program. This is a mentoring

program that is open for high risk students in need of additional

• support. This program matches

students with a mentor from the business community and helps students with a wide range of academic need. The LEAD program includes free tutoring and SAT prep. All costs are covered by a grant form AT&T.

In a pursuit of our goal to increase our graduation rate, we are using the following student based practices:

 All graduation requirements

have been placed on the FHS web site, report cards and progress reports. Each document gives the specific requirements for promotion to the next grade level as well as for graduation. Requirements were discussed with parents and students at New Student Orientation, Back to School Night, and during Parent Conferences.

Questi Question

• ns

2012 NJ State Assessment Results

RaShawn M. Adams, Principal

Subgroup 2011 Baseline % Proficient School-wide 64.8 White 83.1 African-American 59.4 Latino 46.1 Asian 82.7 Students w/Disab 26.9 Econ Disadvantaged 47.4

Franklin Middle School 2012 Annual Progress Targets LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY (Grades 7, 8)

Yearly Increment 2.9 1.4 3.4 4.5 1.5 6.1 4.4 2012 Target 67.7 84.5 62.8 50.6 84.2 33 51.8

2012 % Proficient

63.8 79.8 56.5 50.6 86.8 24.3 46.5

• Latino
• Asian

Met Progress Targets

• White

Met Progress Targets w/ Interval

• School-wide
• African-American
• Students w/ Disabilities
• Econ Disadvantaged

Missed Targets

Subgroup 2011 Baseline % Proficient School-wide 62.1 White 83.2 African-American 52.4 Latino 42.7 Asian 89.1 Students w/Disab 21.1 Econ Disadvantaged 43.5

Franklin Middle School 2012 Annual Progress Targets MATHEMATICS (Grades 7, 8)

Yearly Increment 3.2 1.4 4 4.8 .9 6.6 4.7 2012 Target 65.3 84.6 56.4 47.5 90 27.7 48.2

2012 % Proficient

64.4 81 55.9 49.6 92.7 19.5 47.8

• Asian

Met Goal

• Latino

Met Progress Targets

• School-wide
• White
• African-American
• Econ Disadvantaged

Met Progress Targets w/ Interval

• Students w/

Disabilities

Missed Targets

FMS State 2011 64.8% 72.7% 2012 63.8% 71.3% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

LAL

FMS State 2011 62.1% 68.6% 2012 64.4% 67.4% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Math

Franklin Township Public Schools Franklin Middle School / State of New Jersey NJASK 7, 8: Over 2 Years

2012 NJ State Assessment Results

Eileen Brett, Principal

Subgroup 2011 Baseline % Proficient School-wide 58.4 White 73.2 African-American 52.2 Latino 41.9 Asian 79.7 Stud w/Disabilities 17.9 Econ Disadvantaged 39.2

Sampson G. School 2012 Annual Progress Targets LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY (Grades 5, 6)

Yearly Increment 3.5 2.2 4 4.9 1.7 6.9 5.1 2012 Target 61.9 75.4 56.2 46.8 81.4 24.8 44.3

2012 % Proficient

54.0 65.3 47.5 36.2 84 15.8 40.3

• Asian

Met Progress Targets

• Econ Disadvantaged

Met Progress Targets w/ Interval

• School-wide
• White
• African-American
• Latino
• Stud w/ Disabilities

Missed Targets

Subgroup 2011 Baseline % Proficient School-wide 75.9 White 89.1 African-American 64.6 Latino 71.8 Asian 95.2 Students w/Disab 35.4 Econ Disadvantaged 61

Sampson G. School 2012 Annual Progress Targets MATHEMATICS (Grades 5, 6)

Yearly Increment 2 .9 3 2.4

• 5.4

3.3 2012 Target 77.9 90 67.6 74.2 90 40.8 64.3

2012 % Proficient

76.6 78.0 71.0 70.6 96.5 35.8 68.8

• Asian

Met Goal

• African-American
• Econ Disadvantaged

Met Progress Targets

• School-wide
• Latino
• Students w/Disabilities

Met Progress Targets w/ Interval

• White

Missed Targets

SGS State 2011 58.4% 63.8% 2012 54.0% 63.3% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

LAL

SGS State 2011 75.9% 78.9% 2012 76.6% 81.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

MATH

Franklin Township Public Schools Sampson G. Smith School / State of New Jersey NJASK 5, 6: Over 2 Years

NJSMART Tutorial, 2012

Student Growth Profiles

NJSMART Tutorial, 2012 39

40

41

NJDOE: NJSMART Student Growth Percentile Tutorial (2012)

Growth

42

43

Grade LAL NJ ASK SCORE Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6

205 200 207

44

Maria’s Test History:

Grade LAL NJ ASK SCORE

Grade 4 205 Grade 5 200 Grade 6 207

Maria’s Academic Peers:

Grade LAL NJ ASK SCORE

Grade 4 ~205 Grade 5 ~200 Grade 6 ?

Maria’s Academic Peers:

Grade LAL NJ ASK SCORE Grade 4 ~205 Grade 5 ~200 Grade 6 ?

46

Ma Maria ia

5 20 35 50 65 80 95 2010 2012

• In a growth model, we look at how all students with similar scores over several

years do when compared to each other.

• In this example, we take one student, and see how all students with similar scores

in 2010 and 2011 performed in 2012.

• This tells us whether the change in scores over time is average or below average.

High Growth 65-99 Typical Growth 35-65 Low Growth 1-35

Growth Model

Typical Growth Low Growth High Growth 35 65 1 50 99

50%

Franklin Township Public Schools Aggregate Student Growth Profile Grades 5-8 Language Arts Literacy 2012

48

46% 53% 51% 51% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Schoolwide Franklin Township Public Schools Grades 5-8 Language Arts Literacy 2012

50%

High Growth 65-99 Typical Growth 35-65 Low Growth 1-35

Student Growth Profile

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

• Gr. 5

2012, Gr. 4 2011

• Gr. 6

2012, Gr. 5 2011

• Gr. 7

2012, Gr. 6 2011

• Gr. 8

2012, Gr. 7 2011

Stayed AP or P Increased 1 or more levels Decreased 1 or more levels Stayed PP

Franklin Township Public Schools NJASK 5-8 Cohort Performance Profile Test Year: 2012 Comparison Year: 2011 LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY

Grade 5, 46.4% Grade 6, 56.9% Grade 7, 52.7% Grade 8, 71.3% % Stayed AP, P

• r Increased 1
• r more levels

Typical Growth Low Growth High Growth 35 65 1 50 99

57%

Franklin Township Public Schools Aggregate Student Growth Profile Grades 5-8 Mathematics 2012

51

43% 69% 60% 59% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Schoolwide Franklin Township Public Schools Grades 5-8 Mathematics 2012

57%

High Growth 65-99 Typical Growth 35-65 Low Growth 1-35

Student Growth Profile

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

• Gr. 5

2012, Gr. 4 2011

• Gr. 6

2012, Gr. 5 2011

• Gr. 7

2012, Gr. 6 2011

• Gr. 8

2012, Gr. 7 2011

Stayed AP or P Increased 1 or more levels Decreased 1 or more levels Stayed PP

Franklin Township Public Schools NJASK 5-8 Cohort Performance Profile Test Year: 2012 Comparison Year: 2011 MATHEMATICS

Grade 5, 68.5% Grade 6, 73.7% Grade 7, 59.3% Grade 8, 64.7% % Stayed AP, P

• r Increased 1
• r more levels

Language Arts Progress Towards Goals 2012-2013

Presented by: Carolyn Armstrong, Supervisor 6-12 Thomas Chiola, Content Supervisor 5-8

District Goal: READING

During the 2012-2013 school year, 55% of students in grades 6-8 will end the year reading at or above proficiency as measured by running records meeting the Teacher’s College grade level benchmarks (5% increase from 52% in 2011-2012). Stamina, fluency, and analysis and interpretation will improve over the course of the year for students by an average of 20% (5% increase from 2011-2012) as evidenced by reading logs, reading notebooks, and performance assessments. (Qualitative measures such as notebooks and logs will be assessed by a random sampling during walk-throughs using a rubric in development).

6

• 8

Marking Period 1: Summer reading assessment Increased fluency and stamina on reading log Beginning reader’s notebooks check Running record

Findings indicate that 6-8 readers comprising this sample mostly have moved past the “red flag” and “orange flag” categories in terms of reading behaviors. That is, issues around reading disengagement, inconsistency in volume and stamina, ineffective partner work, and an inability to apply a repertoire of strategies seem to have been

• vercome by most of the children in the sample.

The ongoing goal revolves around working to increase the overall percentage of readers falling into the “blue flag” range. The ongoing goal revolves around working to increase the overall percentage of readers falling into the “blue flag” range. This category is characterized by, for example, greater independence and a sense of agency about reading (“I am in charge of my own reading life” and “Reading can change me”), and possessing metacognition and the ability to reflect upon what is read. Grade Red Flag Orange Flag Yellow Flag Green Flag Blue Flag Sixth (48) 13% 19% 28% 34% 6% Seventh (29) 10% 10% 31% 24% 24% Eighth (21) 10% 10% 29% 38% 14%

Building a Reading Life Continuum: Measuring Reading Behaviors

Building a Reading Life Continuum: Measuring Reading Behaviors

Grade Red Flag Orange Flag Yellow Flag Green Flag Blue Flag Sixth (48) 13% 19% 28% 34% 6% Seventh (29) 10% 10% 31% 24% 24% Eighth (21) 10% 10% 29% 38% 14% Sixth and Eighth Grades: The largest percentage of the sample falls into the “green flag” range. This finding indicates that for this group of readers who may be reading without purpose or intention, instruction needs to focus on building their reflectiveness and accountability. This work will help these students to grow as readers and to be in charge of their own reading lives. Seventh Grade: The largest percentage of the sample for each of these grade levels falls into the “yellow flag” range. This finding indicates that for this group

• f readers, instruction needs to continue to focus on pushing up the level of the

reading work and thinking in an effort to help them to outgrow their current levels.

RUNNING RECORDS: Measuring Reading Levels

6

• 8

Teachers College Benchmark Reading Levels and Marking Period Expectations

Grade Bench mark Sept Jan June Sixth 1-2 A-U A-V A-W 3-4 V-Z W-Beyond X-Beyond Seventh 1-2 A-V A-W A-X 3-4 W- Beyond X-Beyond Y-Beyond Eighth 1-2 A-W A-Y A-Z 3-4 X-Beyond Z-Beyond Beyond

Grade Benchmark Level TC Target Reading Level for September

• Gr. 6-8

September Benchmark Data

Sixth 1-2 A-U 60% 3-4 V-Z 40% Seventh 1-2 A-V 57% 3-4 W-Beyond 43% Eighth 1-2 A-W 32% 3-4 X-Beyond 68%

RUNNING RECORDS: September Benchmark Progress Toward Goal

District Goal: READING

In the 2012-2013 school year, students in grades 9- 12 will deepen their analysis and interpretive reading skills as evidenced by unit common assessments, common midterm assessments and common final exams (cold reads). Students will increase an average of 1 rubric point on the state

• pen-ended rubric 4 point scale.

(No baseline data because common assessments were not in place for the 2011-2012 school year).

9

• 12

Marking Period 1: Summer reading assessment Baseline cold read common assessment (by grade level)

Common Core State Anchor Standards for Reading  Key Ideas and Details  Craft and Structure  Range of Reading and Level of Text Complexity

• For the first time, grade level teams

developed a common cold read to use as a baseline assessment and administered and scored it in September.

• A second cold read is being developed by

grade level teams to administer as a mid-year benchmark.

• A final cold read will be administered

near the end of the year.

• The cold read is a piece of writing the

students have not seen before.

• The passage represents the grade level

standard for the end of the year.

• The questions measure student ability to

meet the Common Core State Anchor Standards for Reading. Grade September Cold Read 9th

56%

10th

54%

11th

80%

12th

60%

Cold Read: Measuring Reading Comprehension

District Goal: WRITING

By the end of the 2012-2013 school year, the average writing score for students in grades 6-8 for on-demand pieces will be a 4 on the NJ Holistic Scoring Rubric, a 1-6 scale, (an increase of 1.5 rubric points from the 2011-2012 school year). Volume in the writer’s notebook will also increase to an average of 2.5 pages a day (an increase of 1 page from the 2011-2012 school year). Student writing will improve in quality on genre-based process pieces as evidenced by student writing portfolios. (Qualitative measures such as notebooks and writing portfolios will be assessed by a random sampling during walk-throughs using a rubric in development).

6

• 8

Marking Period 1: Baseline on-demand writing sample Beginning writer’s notebooks First units’ process pieces

On-Demand Writing (Grades 6-8): Measuring Writing Performance

NJ Registered Holistic Scoring Rubric Sixth (493) Seventh (488) Eighth (430)

Score 0 1% 2% 1% Score 1 6% 6.9% 6% Score 2 19.6% 20.4% 22% Score 3 39.5% 30.7% 28.1% Score 4 30.2% 29.3% 32.4% Score 5 3.4% 10% 11.4% Score 6 0% .1% .1%

• District Writing Samples

are administered in September, December and May.

• Writing is scored using

the New Jersey Registered Holistic Scoring Rubric.

• The 6 point rubric

measures the quality of writing in the following categories:

• Content and

Organization

• Usage
• Sentence Construction
• Mechanics

Although all areas are essential for good writing, Content and Organization is weighed the most heavily on the rubric and is the area of the greatest instructional focus.

District Goal: WRITING

By the end of the 2012-2013 school year, the average writing score for students in grades 9-12 for on-demand pieces will be a 4.5 on the NJ Holistic Scoring Rubric, a 1-6 scale, (an increase of 1 rubric point from the 2011-2012 school year). Student writing will improve in quality on genre- based process pieces as evidenced by student writing portfolios.

9

• 12

Marking Period 1: Baseline on-demand writing sample

On-Demand Writing (Grades 9-12): Measuring Writing Performance

NJ Registered Holistic Scoring Rubric Ninth (569) Tenth (388) Eleventh (405) Twelfth (342)

Score 0 3% 2.8% 3% 2.6% Score 1 5.9% 4% 9.3% 7% Score 2 6.5% 11.5% 17% 8.7% Score 3 31.6% 21.3% 26% 19.5% Score 4 38% 31.7% 23% 42.6% Score 5 12% 20.6% 18% 14.3% Score 6 2.4% 7.7% 3% 4.9%

Literacy Initiatives in the Content Areas

• Social Studies in both 7th & 8th grade have formed Collaborative

Inquiry Groups to read, discuss and implement Best Practices in Reading & Writing in their content area.

• Professional Book Studies focusing on Reading in the Content

Areas.

• Use of text rendering strategies in reading in the content areas

with a focus on citing textual evidence to support students’

• pinions in writing.
• Use of double-entry journals and interactive notebooks in

Science and Social Studies to enhance students’ overall writing performance.

• Use of Word Walls and argument/opinion writing in physical

education classes

• Content Area teachers in grades 5-8 work with the literacy

coach to implement literacy strategies in their content areas.

• Use data dialogue meetings to begin a collaborative assessment

process that will encourage an inquiry based view of data. Teachers will develop their own wonderings and begin to search for “root causes”.

• Implementation and revision of the units of study developed last

year.

• Teacher’s College Reading and Writing Project professional

development for teachers in writing for new staff and reading for seasoned staff.

• Continued development of common assessments and resources

for the units of study.

• Continued use and development of intervention for students at

risk in Title 1, AIS, and differentiation through small group and individualized instruction.

Language Arts Literacy 6-12

Next Steps

Mathematics Progress Towards Goals 2012-2013

Presented by: Nubeja Allen, Supervisor of Math 6-12

District Goal: MATH

During the 2012-2013 school year, 60% of students in grades 6-8 will increase their proficiency of math problem solving standards within the grade band domains (10% increase from 55% in 2011- 2012 school year).

6

• 8

Marking Period 1 Beginning-of-Year assessment data (BOY) Quarterly assessment data Overall proficiency average Percent proficiency on extended-constructed response questions Percent proficiency on major cluster standards

Domains Grade BOY 1st MP % Change The Number System 6 42% 62% +20% Statistics & Probability 43% 51% +8% Problem Solving 37% 53% +16%

Math Overall Proficiency (Grades 6-8)

The Number System 7 41% 52% +11% Problem Solving 37% 53% +16% Geometry 8 26% 52% +26% Problem Solving 12% 49% +37%

Domains Grade BOY 1st MP % Change Average Percent Proficient Based on: Major Cluster Student Learning Objectives 6 42% 62% +20% 7 34% 52% +18% 8 21% 65% +44%

Math Overall Proficiency (Grades 6-8)

Marking Period Cluster Area Strengths Areas of Concern Grade 6 Problem Solving 53% (+16)

• 6.NS.2 Compute fluently w/ multi-

digit numbers 70% (+16)

• 6.NS.5 Understand integers in

context 73% (+42)

• 6.SP.1 Recognize a statistical

question 60% (+24)

• 6.SP.2 Describe data distribution

by its center spread & overall shape 70% (+4)

• 6.NS.1 Interpret & compute

quotients of fractions 48% (+20)

• 6.NS.3 +, −, ×, ÷ multi-digit decimals

57%

• 6.SP.3 Recognize how measures of

center & measures of variation describes the data set 57% (-7)

• 6.SP.5 Summarize numerical data

sets in context 38% (+15) Grade 7 Problem Solving 31% (+9)

• 7.NS.1Add/Subtract Rational

Numbers 60% (-3)

• 7.NS.2 Multiply and Divide Rational

Numbers 61%

• 7.EE.1 Simplify Expressions 72%
• 7.NS.2d Convert Fractions to

Decimals 56%

• 7.NS.3 Operations on Rational

Numbers- to solve problems 32% (-9) Grade 8 Problem Solving 49% (+37)

• 8.G.5 use informal arguments to

establish facts about angle relationships- angles made w/parallel lies and transversals 74% (+68)

• 8.G.3 & 4 Describe effect of a

sequence of transformations and dilations 70% (+21)

• 8.G.2 understand the relationship

between congruence and transformation 56% (+11)

2012-2013 Franklin High School Algebra I Mathematics Common Assessment Data

72

Next Steps

Math 6

Learning experiences will be integrated each week, regardless of the unit that allow students to practice:

• Performing operations on multi-digit numbers, decimals and fractions

in order to meet the grade level fluency expectation by June, including in context and in problem situations;

• Comparing fractions using equivalent fractions, number lines, fraction

tiles & area models;

• Analyzing and interpreting statistical data using measures of center

and spread; and

• Using 4-step approach to problem solving with exemplar student

responses and scoring rubric. Professional learning activities on best practices and strategies for teaching and understanding concepts and problem solving process, strategies and organization will take place during grade level meetings, PD sessions and consultant sessions.

Next Steps

Math 7

Learning experiences will be integrated each week, regardless of the unit that allow students to practice:

• Performing operations on rational numbers in different forms in order

to meet the grade level fluency expectation by June, including in context and in problem situations;

• Comparing & ordering rational numbers in different forms using

equivalent fractions, number lines, fraction tiles & area models;

• Using models, such as scale models to simplify algebraic expressions;

and

• Using 4-step approach to problem solving with exemplar student

responses and scoring rubric. Professional learning activities on best practices and strategies for teaching and understanding concepts and problem solving process, strategies and organization will take place during grade level meetings, PD sessions and consultant sessions.

Next Steps

Math 8

Learning experiences will be integrated each week, regardless of the unit that allow students to practice:

• Justifying and explaining angle relations given 2 parallel lines cut by a

transversal, setting up simple 2 step equations or simplifying algebraic expressions that represent the angle pair;

• Using 4-step approach to problem solving with exemplar student

responses and scoring rubric; and Professional learning activities on best practices and strategies for teaching and understanding concepts and problem solving process, strategies and organization will take place during grade level meetings, PD sessions and consultant sessions.

District Goal: MATH

During the 2012-2013 school year, 64% of students in Algebra 1 will increase their proficiency of math problem solving standards within the grade band domains (10% increase from 58% in 2011-2012 school year).

9

• 12

Marking Period 1 Beginning-of-Year Assessment Data Quarterly Assessment Data Overall proficiency average Percent proficiency on extended-constructed response questions Percent proficiency on major cluster standards

Conceptual Category BOY 1st MP % Change Number & Quantity 14% 79.3% +65.3% Algebra 23% 58.3% +35.3% Functions 20% 56% +36% Statistics & Probability 40% N/A Problem Solving 17% 56% +39% Average Percent Proficient

(Based on Major Cluster SLOs)

22% 60% +38%

Algebra I Overall Proficiency

Marking Period Cluster Area Strengths Areas of Concern Algebra 1 First Problem Solving 56% (+39)

• A.REI.1, 3, 4 Reason w/

expressions, linear equations & inequalities 73% (+51)

• A.REI.10, 11, 12 Represent and

solve equations and inequalities graphically 61% (+43)

• Fluency- Solve equations &

inequalities 69% (+48)

• A.SSE.1 Interpret the

structure of expressions 51% (+15)

• A.CED.2, 3 & 4 Create

equations 48% (+25) How to Address Concerns (Instructional Implications) Practice each week, regardless of the unit:

• Solving linear equations and inequalities in 1 variable, justifying each step of the process.
• Solving linear equations and inequalities in 2 variables as well as graphing in the coordinate plane.,

including in context and problem situations.

• Analyzing and interpreting the meaning of solutions of linear equations in 2 variables including systems.
• Modeling real world problems using linear equations.
• Using 4-step approach to problem solving with exemplar student responses and scoring rubric

Professional learning activities on best practices and strategies for teaching and understanding concepts and problem solving process, strategies and organization will take place during grade level meetings, PD sessions and consultant sessions.

2012-2013 Franklin High School Algebra I Mathematics Common Assessment Data

78

Questi Question

• ns

5 5 min break min break

2012 NJ State Assessment Results

Subgroup 2011 Baseline % Proficient School-wide 54.8 White 65.8 African-American 49.1 Latino 38.5 Asian 80.1 Students w/Disab 26.5 Econ Disadvantaged 38.4

District: Elementary 2012 Annual Progress Targets LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY (Grades 3, 4)

Yearly Increment 3.8 2.9 4.2 5.1 1.7 6.1 5.1 2012 Target 58.6 68.7 53.3 43.6 81.8 32.6 43.5

2012 % Proficient

57 69.1 50.9 32.9 79.3 24.4 39.7

• White

Met Progress Targets

• School-wide
• African-American
• Asian
• Econ Disadvantaged

Met Progress Targets w/ Interval

• Latino
• Students w/ Disabilities

Missed Targets

Subgroup 2011 Baseline % Proficient School-wide 75.3 White 86.5 African-American 68.7 Latino 65.4 Asian 93.7 Students w/Disab 59.5 Econ Disadvantaged 62.7

District: Elementary 2012 Annual Progress Targets MATHEMATICS (Grades 3, 4)

Yearly Increment 2.1 1.1 2.6 2.9

• 3.4

3.1 2012 Target 77.4 87.6 71.3 68.3 90 62.9 65.8

2012 % Proficient

74.3 86.5 66.4 55.1 92.6 52.5 60.1

• Asian

Met Progress Targets

• School-wide
• White
• African American
• Econ Disadvantaged

Met Progress Targets w/ Interval

• Latino
• Students w/disabilities

Missed Targets

District State 2011 56.1% 62.8% 2012 55.6% 62.7% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

LAL

District State 2011 63.1% 79.1% 2012 66.8% 77.9% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

MATH

Franklin Township Public Schools District / State of New Jersey NJASK 3, 4: Over 2 Years

Typical Growth Low Growth High Growth 35 65 1 50 99

49%

Franklin Township Public Schools Aggregate Student Growth Profile Grades 3, 4 Language Arts Literacy 2012

84

38% 56% 41% 46% 54% 53% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Conerly Road Elizabeth Avenue Franklin Park Hillcrest MacAfee Pine Grove Manor Schoolwide Franklin Township Public Schools Grades 3, 4 Language Arts Literacy 2012

49%

High Growth 65-99 Typical Growth 35-65 Low Growth 1-35

Student Growth Profile

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Conerly Elizabeth Franklin Park Hillcrest MacAfee Pine Grove

Stayed AP or P Increased 1 or more levels Decreased 1 or more levels Stayed PP Conerly, 42.6% Elizabeth,

50.5%

Franklin Park, 59.8%

Hillcrest, 47%

MacAfee, 5 2.3% Pine Grove, 47.6%

% Stayed AP, P

• r Increased 1
• r more levels

Franklin Township Public Schools NJASK 3,4 Cohort Performance Profile Test Year: 2012, Grade 4 Comparison Year: 2011, Grade 3 Language Arts Literacy

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

• Gr. 3 to 4
• Gr. 4 to 5

Language Arts Literacy

Stayed AP or P Increased 1 or more levels Decreased 1 or more levels Stayed PP

Grade 3 to 4 Grade 4 to 5

51.2% 46.4%

% Stayed AP, P

• r Increased 1
• r more levels

Franklin Township Public Schools NJASK Cohort Performance Profile Test Year: 2012, Grade 4 Comparison Year: 2011, Grade 3

Typical Growth Low Growth High Growth 35 65 1 50 99

44%

Franklin Township Public Schools Aggregate Student Growth Profile Grades 3, 4 Mathematics 2012

88

33% 37% 38% 54% 55% 57% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Conerly Road Elizabeth Avenue Franklin Park Hillcrest MacAfee Pine Grove Manor Schoolwide Franklin Township Public Schools Grades 3, 4 Mathematics 2012

44%

High Growth 65-99 Typical Growth 35-65 Low Growth 1-35

Student Growth Profile

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Conerly Elizabeth Franklin Park Hillcrest MacAfee Pine Grove

Stayed AP or P Increased 1 or more levels Decreased 1 or more levels Stayed PP Conerly,

62.2%

Elizabeth,

63.4%

Franklin Park, 67.6% Hillcrest, 68.2% MacAfee, 70.5% Pine Grove, 56. 4%

% Stayed AP, P

• r Increased 1
• r more levels

Franklin Township Public Schools NJASK 3, 4 Cohort Performance Profile Test Year: 2012, Grade 4 Comparison Year: 2011, Grade 3 Mathematics

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

• Gr. 3 to 4
• Gr. 4 to 5

Mathematics

Stayed AP or P Increased 1 or more levels Decreased 1 or more levels Stayed PP

Grade 3 to 4 Grade 4 to 5

64.9% 68.5%

% Stayed AP, P

• r Increased 1
• r more levels

Franklin Township Public Schools NJASK Cohort Performance Profile Test Year: 2012, Grade 4 Comparison Year: 2011, Grade 3

Language Arts Progress Towards Goals 2012-2013

Presented by:

• Dr. Karen Schubert-Ramirez, Director (PreK-5)

District Goal: READING

During the 2012-2013 school year, 72.5% of K-2 students will end the year meeting or exceeding benchmarks as measured by Teachers College Reading and Writing Project Running

• Records. This is a 5% increase from 2011-2012 when 69% of

K-2 students met or exceeded reading benchmarks. (Qualitative measures such as notebooks and logs will be assessed by a random sampling during walk-throughs using a rubric in development).

K

• 2

Benchmark #1 (September-Beginning of the Year) *High frequency Word Assessment (Grades 1 and 2) *Spelling Inventory (Grades 1 and 2) *Running Records (Grades 1 and 2) *Beginning of year check of volume of reading logs (K-Grade 2)

District Goal: READING

During the 2012-2013 school year, 60% of 3-5 students will end the year meeting or exceeding benchmarks as measured by Teachers College Reading and Writing Project Running

• Records. This is a 5% increase from 2011-2012 when 57% of

3-5 students met or exceeded reading benchmarks. (Qualitative measures such as notebooks and logs will be assessed by a random sampling during walk-throughs using a rubric in development)..

3

• 5

Benchmark #1 (September-Beginning of the Year) *High frequency Word Assessment *Spelling Inventory *Running Records *Beginning of year check of volume of reading logs

RUNNING RECORDS: Measuring Reading Levels

1

• 2

Teachers College Benchmark Reading Levels and Marking Period Expectations

Grade Bench mark Sept Nov March June First 1-2 B-C C-E E-F G-H 3-4 D-F F-H G-I I-L Second 1-2 F-H G-I I-K J-L 3-4 I-L J-M L-N M-N

Grade Benchmark Level TC Target Reading Level

• Gr. 1-2

September Benchmark Data

Sept Nov Sept Nov

First 1-2 B-C C-E 46% 50% 3-4 D-F F-H 54% 50% Second 1-2 F-H G-I 35% 31% 3-4 I-L J-M 64% 69%

RUNNING RECORDS: September Benchmark (Grades 1-2) Progress Toward Goal

96

RUNNING RECORDS: Measuring Reading Levels

3

• 5

Teachers College Benchmark Reading Levels and Marking Period Expectations

Grade Bench mark Sept Nov March June Third 1-2 K-L K-M M-N N-O 3-4 M-N N-O O-P P-Q Fourth 1-2 M-O N-P O-Q P-R 3-4 P-R Q-S R-T S-U Fifth 1-2 P-R P-S Q-T R-U 3-4 S-T T-U U-V V-W

Grade Benchmark Level TC Target Reading Level

• Gr. 3-5

September Benchmark Data

Sept Nov Sept Nov

Third 1-2 K-L K-M 32% 36% 3-4 M-N N-O 68% 64% Fourth 1-2 M-O N-P 41% 42% 3-4 P-R Q-S 59% 58% Fifth 1-2 P-R P-S 41% 41% 3-4 S-T T-U 59% 58%

RUNNING RECORDS: September Benchmark (Grades 3-5) Progress Toward Goal

Findings indicate that K-5 readers comprising this sample mostly have moved past the “red flag” and “orange flag” categories in terms of reading behaviors. That is, issues around reading disengagement, inconsistency in volume and stamina, ineffective partner work, and an inability to apply a repertoire of strategies seem to have been overcome by most of the children in the sample. The ongoing goal revolves around working to increase the overall percentage of readers falling into the “blue flag” range. This category is characterized by, for example, greater independence and a sense of agency about reading (“I am in charge of my own reading life” and “Reading can change me”), and possessing metacognition and the ability to reflect upon what is read. Grade Red Flag Orange Flag Yellow Flag Green Flag Blue Flag K (99) 7% 25% 39% 25% 3% First (90) 9% 16% 17% 37% 22% Second (86) 6% 13% 30% 34% 17% Third (78) 10% 13% 18% 41% 18% Fourth (87) 7% 11% 28% 32% 22% Fifth (51) 14% 6% 37% 29% 14%

Teachers College Building a Reading Life Continuum

Kindergarten and Fifth Grade: The largest percentage of the sample falls into the “yellow flag” range. This finding indicates that for this group of readers who may be reading without purpose or intention, instruction needs to focus on building their reflectiveness and accountability. This work will help these students to grow as readers and to be in charge of their own reading lives. First, Second, Third, and Fourth Grades: The largest percentage of the sample for each of these grade levels falls into the “green flag” range. This finding indicates that for this group of readers, instruction needs to continue to focus on pushing up the level of the reading work and thinking in an effort to help them to outgrow their current levels.

Teachers College Building a Reading Life Continuum

Grade Red Flag Orange Flag Yellow Flag Green Flag Blue Flag K (99) 7% 25% 39% 25% 3% First (90) 9% 16% 17% 37% 22% Second (87) 6% 13% 30% 34% 17% Third (78) 10% 13% 18% 41% 18% Fourth (87) 7% 11% 28% 32% 22% Fifth (51) 14% 6% 37% 29% 14%

District Goal: WRITING

By the end of the 2012-2013 school year, the District average writing score (as measured by the Teachers College Reading and Writing Continuum) for students in grades K-2 for the final on-demand narrative pieces will increase by 5% from the final on-demand narrative writing pieces from the 2011- 2012 school year. (Qualitative measures such as notebooks and folders will be assessed by a random sampling during walk-throughs using a rubric in development).

K

• 2

Benchmark #1 (September-Beginning of the Year) *On-demand/post-assessment writing pieces (K-Grade 2) *Beginning of year check of volume of writing folders (K-Grade 2)

District Goal: WRITING

By the end of the 2012-2013 school year, the District average writing score (as measured by the Teachers College Reading and Writing Continuum) for students in grades 3-5 for the final on-demand narrative pieces will increase By 5% from the final on-demand narrative writing pieces from the 2011- 2012 school year. (Qualitative measures such as notebooks and folders will be assessed by a random sampling during walk-throughs using a rubric in development).

3

• 5

Benchmark #1 (September-Beginning of the Year) *On-demand/post-assessment writing pieces *Beginning of year check of volume of writing notebooks

Elementary K-5 Qualitative Writing: Progress toward Goal

Grade / # Students Score 1 Score 2 Score 3 Score 4 Score 5 K(97) 24% 27% 36% 11% 2% First (89) 9% 13% 33% 37% 8% Second (87) 1% 21% 32% 43% 3%

Qualitative Writing Rubric Average Score

K-5 teachers randomly selected three students from their classrooms. Utilizing a rubric, teachers reviewed students’ writing work and scored them by considering the rubric descriptions. At Grades K-2, teachers used a 5-point rubric highlighting, for example, ideas, word choice, organization, sentence fluency, correct spelling of known words and phonetic approaches to others, and voice as they looked at student work.

Elementary K-5 Qualitative Writing: Progress toward Goal

Qualitative Writing Rubric Average Score

Teachers at Grades 3-5 used a 3-point rubric that helped them to consider, for example, organization, daily writing, length of entries, use

• f

classroom resources, application

• f

strategies taught, correct spelling, and use of grammar and punctuation. At both the K-2 and 3-5 grade bands, percentages of students falling within each rubric score point was calculated. Grade / # Students Score 1 Score 2 Score 3 Third (78) 21% 50% 29% Fourth (87) 17% 56% 26% Fifth (51) 24% 45% 31%

Language Arts Literacy K-5 On-Demand Narrative Writing

Grade Band Task #1 Task #2

District Goal

K-2 2.1 3.1 3.7 3-5 3.9 4.3 5.5

• On-demand narrative writing tasks

are administered four times through the year.

• These administrations coincide with

narrative writing units of study as reflected in the District pacing guide.

• The Teachers College Reading and

Writing Project’s Narrative Continuum is used to score these writing pieces.

• Grade level averages have been

calculated for these scores.

• While Kindergarten and Grade 5

have experienced two on-demand narrative writing tasks, only one score for these grade levels was calculated at this point in the school year.

Teachers College Narrative Continuum Average Score

Next Steps

Language Arts Literacy K-5

• Provide professional development in Workshop, shifting

focus from writing to reading;

• Enhance understanding of the rigor of the Common Core

State Standards;

• Work on purposeful conferencing and small group

instruction;

• Provide professional development around common

assessments, examining student work, and utilizing the results to plan for instruction;

• Meet with principals, coaches, and teachers to

question/share/discuss student achievement data.

Mathematics Progress Towards Goals 2012-2013

Presented by: Iris Blay, Supervisor of Math K-5

District Goal: MATH

During the 2012-2013 school year, 70% of students in Grades K-2 will demonstrate proficiency in problem solving standards (10% increase from 63.5% in 2011-2012 school year) within grade band priorities and expectations of fluency and conceptual understanding as measured by multiple sources of data.

K

• 2

Marking Period 1: Beginning-of-Year Assessment (BOY) Percent proficiency on open-ended response questions Percent proficiency on benchmark student learning objectives Overall proficiency average Quarterly Assessment #1 Proficiency on open-ended response questions Proficiency on repeated benchmark student learning objectives Overall proficiency average

District Goal: MATH

During the 2012-2013 school year, 71.5% of students in Grades 3-5 will demonstrate proficiency in problem solving standards (10% increase from 64.9% in 2011-2012 school year) within grade band priorities and expectations of fluency and conceptual understanding as measured by multiple sources of data.

3

• 5

Marking Period 1: Beginning-of-Year Assessment Percent proficiency on open-ended response questions Percent proficiency on major cluster standards Overall proficiency average Quarterly Assessment #1 Proficiency on open-ended response questions Proficiency on repeated benchmark student learning objectives Overall proficiency average

MATH 2012 Beginning-of-Year Problem Solving Standard Proficiency Quarter 1 Problem Solving Standard Proficiency

% Change

Score Score 1 Score 2 Score 3 Score Score 1 Score 2 Score 3

Grade 1 28% 23% 32% 17% 12% 10% 20% 58% + 29% 49% of 593 students in grade 1 were Proficient 78% of 613 students in grade 1 were Proficient Grade 2 66% 21% 9% 4% 15% 17% 26% 43% + 56% 13% of 605 students in grade 2 were Proficient 69% of 644 students in grade 2 students were Proficient K-2 Grade Band 31% of students in Grades K- 2 demonstrated proficiency in problem solving standards within grade band priorities and expectations of fluency and conceptual understanding 73% of students in Grades K-2 demonstrated proficiency in problem solving standards within grade band priorities and expectations of fluency and conceptual understanding + 42%

NOTE: According to the New Jersey Holistic Scoring Rubric for open-ended responses, “proficiency” is defined as receiving a score of 2 or higher.

MATH 2012 Beginning-of-Year Problem Solving Standard Proficiency Quarter 1 Problem Solving Standard Proficiency % Change

Score Score 1 Score 2 Score 3 Score Score 1 Score 2 Score 3

Grade 3 50% 36% 8% 8% 59% 21% 10% 11% +5.0% 16% of 559 students in grade 3 were Proficient 21% of 550 students in grade 3 were Proficient

Grade 4

56% 23% 13% 8% 50% 31% 10% 9%

• 2%

21% of 609 students in grade 4 were Proficient 19% of 618 students in grade 4 students were Proficient

Grade 5

84% 7% 3% 6% 36% 19% 16% 34% + 41% 9% of 605 students in grade 5 were Proficient 50% of 644 students in grade 5 students were Proficient 3-5 Grade Band 15% of students in Grades 3-5 demonstrated proficiency in problem solving standards within grade band priorities and expectations of fluency and conceptual understanding 31% of students in Grades 3-5 demonstrated proficiency in problem solving standards within grade band priorities and expectations of fluency and conceptual understanding +16%

NOTE: According to the New Jersey Holistic Scoring Rubric for open-ended responses, “proficiency” is defined as receiving a score of 2 or higher.

Next Steps

Math, K-5

Planning and instruction for problem solving should include the following strategies:

• The four-phase approach for attacking a problem – understand the

problem; devise a plan; carry out the plan; look back.

• Use problem solving for teaching or introducing the content as it

relates to real world.

• Provide students regular problems on a weekly or daily basis.

Both routine and non-routine problems can be used for class instruction and optional challenges. Form study groups with staff, based on individual classroom proficiency percentages, where math coaches can share instructional strategies and techniques to improve student learning and achievement in the development of mathematics concepts and teacher content knowledge.

Math, K-5

• Ensure differentiation (enrichment) for students consistently

performing above the district average to push them from proficiency to advanced proficiency.

• Teacher anecdotal notes should be reviewed and discussed

during post-observation conferences to ensure staff members are addressing areas of focus through small flexible group instruction, daily warm-up, and homework. Teacher anecdotal notes should also be reviewed to ensure staff members are addressing student need through differentiation of the student

• activity. Anecdotal notes must include next steps.
• Informal walkthroughs should focus on grade-level

deficiencies.

Next Steps

• Annual Progress Targets
• Student Growth Profile
• Priority Areas of Focus

School Level Presentations, Principals: January / February

• NJASK, Grades 4, 8
• New Jersey Biology Competency Test

Science: January 24, 2013

• English Language Learners

ACCESS for ELLS: February 21, 2013

• Sampson G. Smith
• Franklin Middle School

School Improvement Plan Overview: March 14, 2013

• Graduation Rates
• HSPA, SAT, Advanced Placement Exams

Franklin High School: April 11, 2013

• Common Core Standards
• Shifts in Assessment

PARCC Assessments: April 25, 2013

Upcoming Presentations…