Spring 2011 NJASK Testing Report Bedminster Township School Presented by: David Bilenker, Supervisor of Instruction.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
EcoTherm Plus WGB-K 20 E 4,5 – 20 kW.
Advertisements

Números.
1 A B C
AGVISE Laboratories %Zone or Grid Samples – Northwood laboratory
Trend for Precision Soil Testing % Zone or Grid Samples Tested compared to Total Samples.
193 G 10. G 194 G G 10 G 197 G
AP STUDY SESSION 2.
1
EuroCondens SGB E.
Slide 1Fig 26-CO, p.795. Slide 2Fig 26-1, p.796 Slide 3Fig 26-2, p.797.
Slide 1Fig 25-CO, p.762. Slide 2Fig 25-1, p.765 Slide 3Fig 25-2, p.765.
Addition and Subtraction Equations
Multiplication X 1 1 x 1 = 1 2 x 1 = 2 3 x 1 = 3 4 x 1 = 4 5 x 1 = 5 6 x 1 = 6 7 x 1 = 7 8 x 1 = 8 9 x 1 = 9 10 x 1 = x 1 = x 1 = 12 X 2 1.
David Burdett May 11, 2004 Package Binding for WS CDL.
New Jersey Statewide Assessment Results: Highlights and Trends State Board of Education, February 6, 2008 Jay Doolan, Ed.D., Assistant Commissioner,
Create an Application Title 1Y - Youth Chapter 5.
Add Governors Discretionary (1G) Grants Chapter 6.
CALENDAR.
CHAPTER 18 The Ankle and Lower Leg
Summative Math Test Algebra (28%) Geometry (29%)
2.11.
The 5S numbers game..
A Fractional Order (Proportional and Derivative) Motion Controller Design for A Class of Second-order Systems Center for Self-Organizing Intelligent.
Media-Monitoring Final Report April - May 2010 News.
Break Time Remaining 10:00.
The basics for simulations
A sample problem. The cash in bank account for J. B. Lindsay Co. at May 31 of the current year indicated a balance of $14, after both the cash receipts.
PP Test Review Sections 6-1 to 6-6
Regression with Panel Data
TCCI Barometer March “Establishing a reliable tool for monitoring the financial, business and social activity in the Prefecture of Thessaloniki”
Copyright © 2012, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved. 1 Chapter 7 Modeling Structure with Blocks.
Progressive Aerobic Cardiovascular Endurance Run
Biology 2 Plant Kingdom Identification Test Review.
Chapter 1: Expressions, Equations, & Inequalities
2.5 Using Linear Models   Month Temp º F 70 º F 75 º F 78 º F.
Adding Up In Chunks.
MaK_Full ahead loaded 1 Alarm Page Directory (F11)
Facebook Pages 101: Your Organization’s Foothold on the Social Web A Volunteer Leader Webinar Sponsored by CACO December 1, 2010 Andrew Gossen, Senior.
TCCI Barometer September “Establishing a reliable tool for monitoring the financial, business and social activity in the Prefecture of Thessaloniki”
Artificial Intelligence
When you see… Find the zeros You think….
Midterm Review Part II Midterm Review Part II 40.
2011 WINNISQUAM COMMUNITY SURVEY YOUTH RISK BEHAVIOR GRADES 9-12 STUDENTS=1021.
Before Between After.
2011 FRANKLIN COMMUNITY SURVEY YOUTH RISK BEHAVIOR GRADES 9-12 STUDENTS=332.
Slide R - 1 Copyright © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Pearson Prentice Hall Active Learning Lecture Slides For use with Classroom Response.
12 October, 2014 St Joseph's College ADVANCED HIGHER REVISION 1 ADVANCED HIGHER MATHS REVISION AND FORMULAE UNIT 2.
: 3 00.
5 minutes.
Numeracy Resources for KS2
1 Non Deterministic Automata. 2 Alphabet = Nondeterministic Finite Accepter (NFA)
1 hi at no doifpi me be go we of at be do go hi if me no of pi we Inorder Traversal Inorder traversal. n Visit the left subtree. n Visit the node. n Visit.
Static Equilibrium; Elasticity and Fracture
Converting a Fraction to %
Numerical Analysis 1 EE, NCKU Tien-Hao Chang (Darby Chang)
Resistência dos Materiais, 5ª ed.
Clock will move after 1 minute
famous photographer Ara Guler famous photographer ARA GULER.
Physics for Scientists & Engineers, 3rd Edition
Select a time to count down from the clock above
Copyright Tim Morris/St Stephen's School
1.step PMIT start + initial project data input Concept Concept.
1 Dr. Scott Schaefer Least Squares Curves, Rational Representations, Splines and Continuity.
1 Non Deterministic Automata. 2 Alphabet = Nondeterministic Finite Accepter (NFA)
Presented to: By: Date: Federal Aviation Administration FAA Safety Team FAASafety.gov AMT Awards Program Sun ‘n Fun Bryan Neville, FAASTeam April 21, 2009.
Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten 05/04/15 Seite 1 Training EPAM and CANopen Basic Solution: Password * * Level 1 Level 2 * Level 3 Password2 IP-Adr.
PRESENTED BY THE DEMAREST ADMINISTRATIVE TEAM Annual State of the Schools Assessment Report.
Presentation transcript:

Spring 2011 NJASK Testing Report Bedminster Township School Presented by: David Bilenker, Supervisor of Instruction

New Jersey Proficiency Levels for Grades 3-8 NJASK  Student scores for NJASK are reported as scaled scores  Scaled scores range from with 300 being a “perfect” score Partially Proficient Partially Proficient Proficient Proficient Advanced Proficient Advanced Proficient

Language Arts Literacy (LAL)  The Language Arts Literacy section of each test measures students’ achievement in reading, writing, and viewing appropriate to their respective grade level  Students read passages selected from published books, newspapers and magazines, as well as everyday text  Students then respond to related multiple- choice, open-ended, and essay questions

Mathematics  The mathematics section of each test measures students’ ability to solve problems by applying mathematical concepts appropriate to their respective grade level  Students do this in response to multiple choice, grid response, and open-ended questions

Science  The Science assessment measures knowledge and skills in three content clusters for grades 4 and 8 appropriate to their respective grade level Life Science Life Science Physical Science Physical Science Earth Science Earth Science  Scores are reported in scaled scores ranging from , with advanced proficient, proficient and partially proficient scores, the same as the LAL and Math assessments

NJASK  The NJASK is a single indicator used to gauge a school or district’s performance during a given school year.  Measures students’ mastery of the New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards for their respective grade level(s).  Ultimately, the NJASK will be “phased out” as the NJCCCS will be replaced by the Common Core State Standards.  Utilized by school district’s for placement purposes and to identify instructional strengths and deficiencies

New Performance Indicators  According to the Education Transformation Task Force, there will be a shift in measuring a school district’s performance through the use of a multitude of performance indicators: Emphasis on Outcomes Graduation Rates College Readiness Achievement Gains Academic Progress (growth over time)

Reasons for Change Initiative  Governor has charged the Task Force of redefining what is considered success/failure for school districts by developing new criteria.  The NJASK does not measure a school district’s growth over time and fails to account for the impact of various sub-groups performance and their impact on the district’s overall scores/rating.

Facts  Bedminster Township School’s student population is comprised of the following sub-groups: 18% Special Education 3.3% Limited English Proficient  Historically, the aforementioned subgroups are outperformed by their counterparts on state assessments such as the NJASK.

District Factor Groups  The District Factor Groups (DFGs) were first developed in 1975 for the purpose of comparing students’ performance on statewide assessments across demographically similar school districts.  The DFGs represent an approximate measure of a community’s relative socioeconomic status (SES). The classification system provides a useful tool for examining student achievement and comparing similarly-situated school districts in other analyses.

DFG  The DFGs are calculated using the following six variables : 1) Percent of adults with no high school diploma 2) Percent of adults with some college education 3) Occupational status 4) Unemployment rate 5) Percent of individuals in poverty 6) Median family income.

DFG Comparison LAL – Grade 3 Grade 3 BTS (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education3321.2%60.6%18.2%218.9 Special Education1341.7%58.3%0%204.7 Limited English4100%0% Total4929.8%57.4%12.8%213.1 Grade 3 DFG (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education15.5%69.9%14.6%220.2 Special Education46.6%48.9%4.5%200.1 Limited English44%51.3%4.7%199.9 Total21.1%66.1%12.8%216.5

DFG Comparison Math – Grade 3 Grade 3 BTS (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education336.1%57.6%36.4%240.8 Special Education138.3%50%41.7%237.8 Limited English44%100%0%179.3 Total4912.5%52.1%35.4%236.1 Grade 3 DFG (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education5.7%43.1%51.1%249.1 Special Education24.9%50.4%24.6%222.4 Limited English25.5%39.2%35.3%227.8 Total9.3%44.3%46.4%244.3

DFG Comparison LAL – Grade 4 Grade 4 BTS (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education5334%54.7%11.3%213.1 Special Education1280%20%0%183.3 Limited English2100%0% Total6541.3%49.2%9.5%208.4 Grade 4 DFG (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education13.7%70.6%15.7%223 Special Education48.7%47.2%4%196.2 Limited English49.7%46.6%3.7%197.2 Total20%66.4%13.6%218.2

DFG Comparison Math – Grade 4 Grade 4 BTS (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education537.5%39.6%52.8%251 Special Education1250%40%10%196.1 Limited English2100%0% 185 Total6514.3%39.7%46%242.3 Grade 4 DFG (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education5.7%43.1%51.1%249.1 Special Education24.9%50.4%24.6%222.4 Limited English25.5%39.2%35.3%227.8 Total9.3%44.3%46.4%244.3

DFG Comparison LAL – Grade 5 Grade 5 BTS (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education468.9%80%11.1%222.5 Special Education1753.3%46.7%0%195.7 Limited English10% 0 Total6420%71.7%8.3%215.8 Grade 5 DFG (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education12.6%73.1%14.3%223.9 Special Education55.3%42.4%2.3%194.6 Limited English46.7%48.6%4.7%199.7 Total19.8%67.9%12.3%219

DFG Comparison Math – Grade 5 Grade 5 BTS (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education462.2%44.4%53.3%254 Special Education1746.7%26.7% Limited English10%100%0%237 Total6413.1%41%45.9%244.1 Grade 5 DFG (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education3.7%33.3%63%256.2 Special Education29.7%44.4%25.9%220.3 Limited English22.1%36.8%41.1%232.9 Total8.1%35.1%56.8%250.1

DFG Comparison LAL – Grade 6 Grade 6 BTS (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education567.1%78.6%14.3%229.4 Special Education1258.3%41.7%0%191 Limited English20%100%0%218 Total6916.2%72.1%11.8%222.6 Grade 6 DFG (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education10.7%73.8%15.4%225.3 Special Education55.3%43.1%1.6%195.8 Limited English47.3%51.6%1.1%200.3 Total17.5%69.2%13.4%220.8

DFG Comparison Math – Grade 6 Grade 6 BTS (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education560%57.1%42.9%249.5 Special Education1275%16.7%8.3%194.9 Limited English250%0%50%246.5 Total6914.5%49.3%36.2%239.2 Grade 6 DFG (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education5%47.8%47.2%246.2 Special Education39.6%48.5%11.8%207 Limited English26.7%45.4%27.9%224.2 Total10.2%47.9%41.9%240.3

DFG Comparison LAL – Grade 7 Grade 7 BTS (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education573.5%57.9%38.6%236.4 Special Education885.7%14.3%0%177.4 Limited English00% 0 Total6512.5%53.1%34.4%229.9 Grade 7 DFG (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education10.7%63.3%26%229.7 Special Education58.3%38.7%3%191.6 Limited English54.9%41.1%4%193.6 Total17.7%59.6%22.7%224.1

DFG Comparison Math- Grade 7 Grade 7 BTS (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education5712.3%40.4%47.4%242.8 Special Education842.9%57.1%0%192.9 Limited English00% 0 Total6515.6%42.2% Grade 7 DFG (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education10.8%45.3%43.9%241.5 Special Education56.2%34.6%9.2%195 Limited English39.4%33%27.5%215.4 Total17.4%43.7%38.9%234.8

DFG Comparison LAL- Grade 8 Grade 8 BTS (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education710%48.6%51.4%246.3 Special Education1144.4%55.6%0%209.2 Limited English00% 0 Total825.1%49.4%45.6%242.1 Grade 8 DFG (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education6.2%59.7%34.1%237 Special Education30.6%64.1%5.3%210 Limited English35.1%62.3%2.6%206.1 Total6.2%59.7%34.1%237

DFG Comparison Math- Grade 8 Grade 8 BTS (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education711.4%38%60.6%256.2 Special Education1155.6%33.3%11.1%197.4 Limited English00% 0 Total827.5%37.5%55%249.6 Grade 8 DFG (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education7.4%40%52.7%248.8 Special Education50.9%36.2%12.9%198.4 Limited English35.9%39.1%25%216 Total13.7%39.5%46.9%241.5

Highlights   One hundred percent of our sixth grade general education students were proficient or advanced proficient on the Math section of the NJASK.   One hundred percent of our eighth grade general education students were proficient or advanced proficient on the LAL section of the NJASK.   One hundred percent of our fourth grade special education students were proficient or advanced proficient on the Science section of the NJASK   One hundred percent of our 7 th and 8 th graders passed the end of course Algebra I test.: 7 th grade: 100% advanced proficient 8 th grade: 42% advanced proficient

Highlights   Bedminster students are well prepared by the time they graduate from 8th grade. When compared against districts with like students, socio-economic level, per capita income, housing measures and aspirations, the facts reveal that Bedminster outperformed the state averages within our DFG: Language Arts Literacy Grade 8 BTS Mean Score All Students LAL* Grade 8 DFG State Mean Score All Students LAL* Mathematics Grade 8 BTS Mean Score All Students MT* 249.6** Grade 8 DFG State Mean Score All Students MT* 241.5

Highlights   Bedminster students consistently perform well on all sections of the state test each year.   In many areas and grade levels, Bedminster students out-perform students in the same District Factor Group.   In almost all areas and grade levels, Bedminster students out-perform the state mean.

Questions ?