2018-19 TESTING PRESENTATION O C T O B E R 1 5 , 2 0 1 9 T R A C E Y M A R I N E L L I N I C O L E D I L K E S
2019 PARTICIPATAION RATE
5 PERFORMANCE LEVELS • Level 1 • Not Yet Meeting Expectations • Level 2 • Partially Meeting Expectations • Level 3 • Approaching Expectations • Level 4 • Meeting Expectations • Level 5 • Exceeding Expectations
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS COMPARISON PERCENTAGE (%) OF STUDENTS MEETING AND EXCEEDING STANDARDS LITTLE FALLS TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO NEW JERSEY 100 88 87 86 90 85 83 82 80 70 62.9 62.8 57.9 57.4 56.1 60 50.2 State 50 Little Falls 40 30 20 10 0 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS COMPARISON PERCENTAGE (%) OF STUDENTS NOT MEETING AND PARTIALLY MEETING STANDARDS LITTLE FALLS TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS Little Falls 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 Little Falls 30 20 12 7 10 6 6 5 0 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS COMPARISON PERCENTAGE (%) OF STUDENTS NOT MEETING AND PARTIALLY MEETING STANDARDS LITTLE FALLS TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO NEW JERSEY % Not meeting or partially meeting 100 90 80 70 60 Little Falls 50 40 State 30 15 20 5 10 0 Little Falls State
MATHEMATICS COMPARISON PERCENTAGE (%) OF STUDENTS MEETING AND EXCEEDING STANDARDS LITTLE FALLS TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO NEW JERSEY 100 92 90 86 80 75 70 66 66 65 58 60 55.1 51 46.8 50 State 43.3 42.1 40.6 Little Falls 40 29.3 30 20 10 0 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Algebra I
MATHEMATICS COMPARISON PERCENTAGE (%) OF STUDENTS NOT MEETING AND PARTIALLY MEETING STANDARDS LITTLE FALLS TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS Little Falls 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 Little Falls 30 18 20 14 12 11 7 10 0 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
MATHEMATICS COMPARISON PERCENTAGE (%) OF STUDENTS NOT MEETING AND PARTIALLY MEETING STANDARDS LITTLE FALLS TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO NEW JERSEY % Not meeting or partially meeting 100 90 80 70 60 Little Falls 50 40 State 30 20 14 7 10 0 Little Falls State
GRADE 3 PERFORMANCE LEVEL ANALYSIS 120 100 7.4 13.9 28 Exceeding 42 80 42.8 Meeting 41.2 Approaching 60 54 Partially Meeting 21.4 40 51 23 Not Meeting 14.4 20 13.9 13 14 7 8 3 0 1 1 0 Gr. 3 ELA State ELA Gr. 3 Math State Math Numbers represent percentage of students
GRADE 4 PERFORMANCE LEVEL ANALYSIS 100 7.7 28.2 18.3 90 80 34 43.3 70 Exceeding 39.1 60 64 Meeting 50 Approaching 40 25.7 49 21.4 Partially Meeting 30 Not Meeting 20 14.7 12.6 24 10 3 8.6 8.6 5 1 0 0 0 Gr. 4 ELA State ELA Gr. 4 State Math Math Numbers represent percentage of students
GRADE 5 PERFORMANCE LEVEL ANALYSIS 100 11 12.3 15 90 31 80 35.8 70 Exceeding 45.6 50 60 Meeting 50 Approaching 54 25.8 40 Partially Meeting 22.2 30 27 Not Meeting 20 20.9 12.5 7 10 5 8 7.4 6.4 3 0 0 Gr. 5 ELA State ELA Gr. 5 State Math Math Numbers represent percentage of students
GRADE 6 PERFORMANCE LEVEL ANALYSIS 100 7.5 9 15.2 90 40 80 33.1 70 49 Exceeding 40.9 60 Meeting 50 27.4 Approaching 40 46 23.9 Partially Meeting 30 32 22.5 Not Meeting 20 12.6 9 10 8 9.6 7.3 4 2 1 0 Gr. 6 ELA State ELA Gr. 6 State Math Math Numbers represent percentage of students
GRADE 7 PERFORMANCE LEVEL ANALYSIS 120 100 8.3 16 29.7 Exceeding 80 33.8 60 Meeting 50 60 33.1 Approaching 29.3 Partially Meeting 40 17.8 27 Not Meeting 23 21.1 20 10.5 9 10 8.9 7.6 0 3 1 0 Gr. 7 ELA State ELA Gr. 7 State Math Math Numbers represent percentage of students
GRADE 8 PERFORMANCE LEVEL ANALYSIS 120 1 100 7 24.9 27.2 Exceeding 44 80 Meeting 59 27.1 60 38 Approaching Partially Meeting 40 43 22.7 17.7 18 Not Meeting 20 10.3 22 12 9 9.2 2 4 2 0 Gr. 8 State Gr. 8 State ELA ELA Math Math Numbers represent percentage of students
ALGEBRA I PERFORMANCE LEVEL ANALYSIS 120 5.6 14 100 Exceeding 37.7 80 Meeting Approaching 60 73 21.4 Partially Meeting 40 Not Meeting 26 20 14 9.3 0 0 0 LF Alg. I State Alg. I Numbers represent percentage of students
Mathematics Cohort Achievement and Growth Same students, consecutive grades % Meeting + Exceeding 100 90 80 70 60 2014-15 50 40 2015-16 30 2016-17 20 2017-18 10 2018-19 0
Special Education Mathematics Cohort Achievement and Growth Same students, consecutive grades % Meeting + Exceeding 100 90 80 70 60 2014-15 50 40 2015-16 30 2016-17 20 2017-18 10 2018-19 0
MATH SUBGROUP CHART OF 5 YEAR GROWTH 100 90 80 71 70 68 67 All Students 64 61 61 60 60 58 Students with 50 50 50 50 48 48 45 Disabilities 41 40 40 38 Economically 33 30 Disadvantaged 27 20 English Language 17 Learners 10 0
WHAT CHANGES WILL BE IMPLEMENTED FOR MATHEMATICS IN 2019-20 … • Made staff changes • Addition of Math Intervention Specialist • All Math teachers will attend Conquer Math Workshops with Nancy Shultz • Additional professional development and modeling by math consultant • District review and analysis of evidence statements with staff • Staff data binders to be used for PLCs (professional learning communities) • PLCs to be held regularly with administration • Continue with BOOST • Summer math camp to be established
ELA Cohort Achievement and Growth Same students, consecutive grades % Meeting + Exceeding 100 90 80 70 2014-15 60 2015-16 50 2016-17 40 2017-18 30 2018-19 20 10 0 Gr 3-4 Gr 3-4-5 Gr 3-4-5-6 Gr 3-4-5- Gr 4-5-6- All 6-7 7-8 Grades
Special Education ELA Cohort Achievement and Growth Same students, consecutive grades % Meeting + Exceeding 100 90 80 70 60 2014-15 2015-16 50 2016-17 40 2017-18 30 2018-19 20 10 0 Gr 3-4 Gr 3-4-5 Gr 3-4-5- Gr 3-4-5- Gr 4-5-6- All 6 6-7 7-8 Grades
ELA SUBGROUP CHART OF 5 YEAR GROWTH 100 100 90 85 83 83 81 80 76 74 72 70 67 All Students 64 64 63 61 60 57 Students with 50 50 49 45 Disabilities 40 Economically 30 Disadvantaged 28 20 English Language 14 Learners 10 0 0
WHAT CHANGES WILL BE IMPLEMENTED FOR ELA IN 2019-20 … • District review and analysis of evidence statements with staff • Staff data binders to be used for PLCs (professional learning communities) • PLCs to be held regularly with administration • Fountas and Pinnell in grades K-2 • Continue with Orton Gillingham in grades K-2 (3- 8 as needed) • Continue with BOOST • Summer reading camp continue
2018-19 WIDA - 11 STUDENTS TESTED PROFICIENCY LEVEL SCORES ARE REPORTED AS NUMBERS THAT RANGE FROM 1-6. THESE SCORES CORRESPOND TO THE SIX WIDA ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY LEVELS. A SCORE OF 1 CAN BE THOUGHT OF AS A “BEGINNER” SCORE, WHILE A 6 CA N BE THOUGHT OF AS AN “ADVANCED” SCORE IN REGARDS TO ENGLISH PROFICIENCY. Grade Listening Speaking Reading Writing Oral Literacy Comprehension Overall Language K 5.7 6.0 1.5 2.0 5.9 1.7 1.8 2.6 K 6.0 6.0 1.7 2.3 6.0 1.9 2.1 3.0 K 5.1 4.0 1.0 1.0 4.2 1.0 1.4 1.4 2 5.5 3.8 6.0 3.9 4.3 4.6 6.0 4.5 2 6.0 2.4 6.0 3.5 3.6 4.1 6.0 3.9 2 3.9 3.4 2.8 3.1 3.6 3.0 3.2 3.2 5 6.0 4.0 2.3 3.2 5.0 2.8 3.7 3.5 6 5.7 2.7 5.0 3.6 3.7 3.8 5.3 3.8 7 6.0 2.5 4.7 4.0 3.9 4.1 5.5 4.0 8 2.7 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.7 8 6.0 3.0 3.7 3.3 4.4 3.4 5.6 3.7
2018-19 DLM Subject / Emerging Approachin At Target Advanced Number of g Target Students ELA (14) 7 2 5 0 Math (14) 8 4 1 1 Science (3) 2 1 0 0 Emerging : Student demonstrates emerging understanding of and ability to apply content knowledge and skills represented by the Essential Elements. Approaching the Target : The student’s understanding of and ability to apply targeted content knowledge and skills represented by the Essential Elements is approaching the target . At Target : The student’s understanding of and ability to apply content knowledge and skills represented by the Essential Elements is at target . Advanced: The student demonstrates advanced understanding of and ability to apply targeted content knowledge and skills represented by the Essential Elements.
TO WHAT DO WE ATTRIBUTE OUR MOBILITY RATE • Mobility rate is moving students across proficiency levels with the goal being to move all into Proficiency Levels 4 and 5. • The work of DEAC and ScIP • Continuity and Collaboration among administrators and staff • Increased PLC time and standardization of PLC procedures and expectations • DATA … DATA … DATA • Students Data analysis • Informing instruction • Informing change • Informing curriculum alignment • Inclusion and Inclusion Training • Access to technology
Recommend
More recommend
