Measuring College and Career Readiness PARCC Results: Spring 2017 Administrations Harding Township School September 25, 2017 Mary Donohue, Principal/Director of Curriculum Matthew A. Spelker, Superintendent Measuring College and Career Readiness

Highlights and Takeaways from the 2017 PARCC Administration Language Arts: - Participation increased from 172 students in 2016 to 203 students in 2017. As a school, HTS had 91% of its students passing the ELA assessment in 2017 versus 77% passing in 2015 (a double digit increase of 14%). As a school, HTS had 6.0% less students achieving a Level 1 or Level 2 score in a comparison of same grade scores (2017 vs. 2015).

Highlights and takeaways from the 2017 PARCC administration Mathematics Participation increased from 172 students in 2016 to 203 students in 2017. From 2015 to 2017 HTS saw a double-digit increase of 15% in passing scores (levels 4 and 5). From 2015 to 2017 HTS saw a decrease of 9% in level 1 and 2 scores. Science Harding had 91% of its students pass the spring 2017 NJASK. 70% of our HTS 4th and 8th graders were Advanced Proficient. 18 HTS students (over 25% of those taking the test) achieved a perfect score of 300.

Comparison of Harding Township School Students Tested Spring 2016 and Spring 2017 PARCC Administrations Mathematics Students Tested Year to Year Increase 2016 2017 Grade 3 32 39 +7 Grade 4 27 36 +9 Grade 5 34 30 -4 Grade 6 31 +8 Grade 7 28 -3 Grade 8* 7 -- Algebra I 24 +17 Geometry 3 TOTAL 172 203 +31 *Some students in grade 8 participated in the PARCC Algebra I assessment in place of the 8th grade Math assessment. Thus, PARCC Math 8 outcomes are not representative of grade 8 performance as a whole. Notes: “Students Tested” represents individual valid test scores for Mathematics.

Year to Year Increase/Decrease Comparison of Harding Township School Students Tested Spring 2016 and Spring 2017 PARCC Administrations English Language Arts/Literacy Students Tested Year to Year Increase/Decrease 2016 2017 Grade 3 32 39 +7 Grade 4 27 36 +9 Grade 5 34 30 -4 Grade 6 31 +8 Grade 7 --- Grade 8 17 28 +11 TOTAL 172 203 +31 . Note: “Students Tested” represents individual valid test scores for English Language Arts/Literacy.

Comparison of Harding Township School Spring 2017 PARCC Administrations English Language Arts/Literacy to new jersey- percentages Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1) Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2) Approaching Expectations (Level 3) Meeting Expectations (Level 4) Exceeding Expectations (Level 5) State District 2017 Grade 3 12.7 14.4 3 22.5 8 42.9 64 7.5 26 Grade 4 7.7 12.8 23.7 6 40.5 44 15.4 47 Grade 5 6.8 12.2 22.1 7 48.2 83 10.7 10 Grade 6 6.5 14.6 25.6 41.0 56 12.3 36 Grade 7 8.9 11.4 20.5 35.4 42 23.8 55 Grade 8 9.0 11.6 20.3 14 39 18.6 46 . Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Comparison of Harding Township School Spring 2017 PARCC Administrations MATHEMATICS to new jersey- percentages Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1) Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2) Approaching Expectations (Level 3) Meeting Expectations (Level 4) Exceeding Expectations (Level 5) State District 2017 Grade 3 7.8 14.6 25.1 10 38.7 44 13.7 46 Grade 4 8.1 17.5 3 27.1 14 40.6 56 6.7 28 Grade 5 6.5 17.8 29.6 20 37.3 63 8.9 7 Grade 6 9.7 19.1 5 27.7 26 35.0 54 8.6 13 Grade 7 8.0 19.9 11 32.5 29 33.9 39 5.7 21 Grade 8* 22.9 n/a 21.4 28.0 26.9 0.8 Algebra I 12.2 22.1 4 24.2 36.9 4.5 *Some students in grade 8 participated in the PARCC Algebra I assessment in place of the 8th grade Math assessment. Thus, PARCC Math 8 outcomes are not representative of grade 8 performance as a whole. Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Three Year Comparison Of Harding Township School English/Language Arts Results: Highest Two Levels

Three Year Comparison Of Harding Township School English/Language Arts Results- Lowest Two Levels

Three Year Cohort- ELA % of Cohort meeting or exceeding on Parcc

Three Year Comparison of Harding Township School Mathematics results: Highest Two Levels

Three Year Comparison of Harding township school mathematics results: Lowest Two Levels

Three Year Cohort-Math % of Cohort Meeting or Exceeding on parcc

2017- Third Grade HTS Comparison to state and nation: % passing (level 4 and Level 5)

2017- Fourth Grade HTS Comparison to state and nation: % passing (level 4 and level 5)

2017- Fifth Grade HTS Comparison to state and nation: % passing (Level 4 and level 5)

2017- sixth Grade HTS Comparison to state and nation: % passing (level 4 and level 5)

2017: seventh Grade HTS Comparison to state and nation: % passing level 4 and level 5

2017- eighth Grade HTS Comparison to state and nation: % passing level 4 and level 5

COMPARISON OF Harding Township School 2015 to 2017 Spring PARCC Administrations Mathematics % Change in Level 1 and Level 2 % Change in Level 4 and Level 5 Harding Township School State Grade 3 0% 4.4% 2% 7.5% Grade 4 3.5% 8% 6.7% Grade 5 10% 2.5% 13% 5.2% Grade 6 0.2% 11% 2.8% Grade 7 29% 2.1% 54% Grade 8 n/a 3.8% 4.2% Algebra I* 4.8% 30% 5.4% *Some students in grade 8 participated in the PARCC Algebra I assessment in place of the 8th grade Math assessment. Thus, PARCC Math 8 outcomes are not representative of grade 8 performance as a whole. Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

COMPARISON OF Harding Township School 2015 to 2017 Spring PARCC Administrations ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY % Change in Level 1 and Level 2 % Change in Level 4 and Level 5 Harding Township School State Grade 3 3% 5.8% 2% 6.9% Grade 4 1.8% 19% 4.8% Grade 5 6% 3.3% 13% 7.4% Grade 6 14% 2.3% 18% 4.5% Grade 7 5.0% 36% 7.6% Grade 8 5.5% 7.5% Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. - 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.

Comparison of Harding Township School Spring 2015, Spring 2016, & SPRING 2017 PARCC Administrations Mathematics - PERCENTAGES Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1) Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2) Approaching Expectations (Level 3) Meeting Expectations (Level 4) Exceeding Expectations (Level 5) Change in Level 1 and Level 2 From 2015 to 2017 Change in Level 4 and Level 5 From 2015 to 2017** Grade 2015 2016 2017 3 0% 3% 8% 6% 10% 58% 44% 33% 47% 46% --- -2% 4 5% 20% 4% 14% 68% 74% 56% 22% 28% +8% 5 17% 12% 23% 26% 63% 11% 7% -10% +13% 6 18% 24% 50% 54% 13% -13% +11% 7 16% 53% 29% 48% 39% 21% -29% +54% 8* n/a ALG I 38% 41% +30% Overall Math 2% 1% 25% 49% 55% -9% +15% *Approximately 30,000 New Jersey students in grade 8 participated in the PARCC Algebra I assessment. Thus, PARCC Math 8 outcomes are not representative of grade 8 performance as a whole. **Level 4 and Level 5 is an indication a student is on pace to be college and career ready. Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Comparison of Harding Township School Spring 2015, Spring 2016, & SPRING 2017 PARCC Administrations English Language Arts/Literacy - PERCENTAGES Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1) Par1%tially Meeting Expectations (Level 2) Approaching Expectations (Level 3) Meeting Expectations (Level 4) Exceeding Expectations (Level 5) Change in Level 1 and Level 2 From 2015 to 2017 Change in Level 4 and Level 5 From 2015 to 2017** Grade 2015 2016 2017 3 0% 3% 8% 6% 83% 69% 64% 22% 26% +3% -2% 4 5% 23% 43% 52% 44% 30% 48% 47% +19% 5 14% 12% 7% 60% 71% 20% 18% 10% -6% +13% 6 38% 56% 35% 36% -14% 7 11% 13% 33% 42% 28% 68% 55% -13% +36% 8 50% 53% 39% 24% 46% -3% +2% Overall ELA 1% 2% 15% 51% 27% +14% Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Harding township school’s 2017 NJASK GRADE-LEVEL Outcomes Science Count of Valid Test Scores Partially Proficient Proficient Advanced Proficient District % Passing Grade 4 36 0% 11% 89% 100% 4th graders received 16 perfect scores of 300 Grade 8 34 18% 32% 50% 82% 8th graders 2 perfect HTS Totals 70 9% 21% 70% 91%

Harding township school’s NJASK GRADE-LEVEL Outcomes Science: 2017 vs Count of Valid Test Scores Partially Proficient Proficient Advanced Proficient District % Passing Grade 4 2016 28 0% 18% 82% 100% 2017 36 11% 89% Grade 8 22 14% 45% 41% 86% 34 32% 50%

Next Steps How does the faculty and administration use this data? As a district, what data do we decide to focus on? Types of data and analysis: - District and grade level data - Individual student data - Student-level analysis - Item analysis

Year Three Data Plan: Drilling Down District and School Level Data: Math, ELA, reading and writing, and also by grade levels Disaggregated data, by subgroups Disaggregated data by categories, (i.e., standards sub-claims) Item analysis Student-level analysis

Examples of Data and analysis-Disaggregated data by subgroups

Example- Item Analysis

Item Analysis-continued

Student-Level Analysis Student-level analysis has already begun with our teachers whose students take the PARCC assessment. Preliminary meetings regarding the results on the spring 2017 assessment took place in August and early September. Analysis of student scores from last year’s assessment; this includes strengths and weaknesses of 16-17 students and current students. This includes a deeper look at how past students performed and the instructional needs of current students. Analysis of items so that trends regarding performance can be determined.

Questions?