1 State Testing March 2006 Grades 3-8 (NJASK and GEPA)

2 District Factor Grouping DFG results compare our children’s test results to those in districts of similar socioeconomic status. Community wealth and educational levels are primary criteria. Mendham Borough is a “J” district, the highest DFG rating, so our children’s work is compared to similar districts, the most competitive level of comparison. A few other J districts are Harding, Mendham Twnshp, Millburn, Mt. Lakes, and Tewksbury.

3 Nature of Comparisons Comparing grade 3 and 4 results from the same year means comparing two different cohorts’ results. Comparing grade 3 of last year to grade 4 of this year means we are comparing the same students’ results, but on different tests.

4 NJASK Grade 3 All 83 Students March 2006 Language Arts Literacy % Advanced Proficient % Proficient % Partially Proficient Mathematics % Advanced Proficient % Proficient % Partially Proficient

5 Comparisons Grade 3, 2006 Language Arts Literacy all 83 students Total StudentsHilltopState Advanced Proficient Proficient Partially Proficient Hilltop J Districts Advanced Proficient Proficient Partially Proficient8.44.5

6 LAL Total Proficiency Comparisons Grade 3

7 NJASK Grade 3 All 83 Students March 2006 Language Arts Literacy % Advanced Proficient % Proficient % Partially Proficient Mathematics % Advanced Proficient % Proficient % Partially Proficient

8 Comparisons Grade 3, 2006 Mathematics all 83 students Total Students Hilltop%State% Adv Proficient Proficient Partially Proficient Hilltop%J Districts% Adv Proficient Proficient Partially Proficient3.63.5

9 Mathematics Total Proficiency Comparisons Grade 3

10 NJASK Grade 4 All 69 Students 2006 Language Arts Literacy Advanced Proficient Proficient Partially Proficient Mathematics Advanced Proficient Proficient Partially Proficient

11 Comparisons Grade 4, 2006 Language Arts Literacy all 69 students Total StudentsHilltopState Advanced Proficient Proficient Partially Proficient Hilltop J District Advanced Proficient Proficient Partially Proficient

12 LAL Total Proficiency Comparison Grade 4

13 NJASK Grade 4 All 69 Students 2006 Language Arts Literacy Advanced Proficient Proficient Partially Proficient Mathematics Advanced Proficient Proficient Partially Proficient

14 Comparisons Grade 4, 2006 Mathematics all 69 students Total StudentsHilltopState Advanced Proficient Proficient Partially Proficient Hilltop J District Advanced Proficient Proficient Partially Proficient

15 Mathematics Total Proficiency Comparison Grade 4

16 NJASK 5 74 students Language Arts LiteracyMt VState Advanced Proficient16.2%9.3% Proficient78.4%76.6% Partially Proficient 5.4%14.1% Mathematics Advanced Proficient41.9%27.5% Proficient52.7%54.2% Partially Proficient 5.4%18.2%

17 NJASK 6 82 students Language Arts LiteracyMt ViewState Advanced Proficient11.1%9.2% Proficient76.5%65.8% Partially Proficient12.3%25.0% Mathematics Advanced Proficient32.1%17.3% Proficient46.9%53.5% Partially Proficient21.0%29.3%

18 NJASK 7 80 students Language Arts LiteracyMt ViewState Advanced Proficient22.5%9.9% Proficient75.0%70.4% Partially Proficient2.5%19.8% Mathematics Advanced Proficient32.5%14.4% Proficient55%49.9% Partially Proficient12.5%35.7%

19 GEPA Grade students Language Arts Literacy % Advanced Proficient % Proficient Partially Proficient Mathematics % Advanced Proficient % Proficient % Partially Proficient

20 Comparisons Grade 8, 2006 Language Arts Literacy (%) Total StudentsMV State Advanced Proficient Proficient Partially Proficient

21 Language Arts Total Proficiency Comparisons Grade 8

22 GEPA Grade students Language Arts Literacy % Advanced Proficient % Proficient Partially Proficient Mathematics % Advanced Proficient % Proficient % Partially Proficient

23 Comparisons Grade 8, 2006 Mathematics (%) Total StudentsMV State Advanced Proficient Proficient Partially Proficient

24 Mathematics Total Proficiency Comparisons Grade 8

25 Cluster Scores Grade 3 Language Arts Literacy 2006 TOTAL STUDENTS(in % possible points) HilltopStateJ Distr WRITING45 50 about pictures about poems READING Working with text Analyzing text TOTAL LAL

26 Cluster Scores Grade 4 Language Arts Literacy 2006 TOTAL STUDENTS(in % possible points) HilltopStateJ District WRITING about pictures about poems READING Working with text Analyzing text TOTAL LAL

27 Cluster Scores Grade 8 Language Arts Literacy 2006 Mountain View StateJ Districts Writing Reading Interpreting Text Analyzing Text

28 Cluster Scores Grade 3 Mathematics 06 % of possible HilltopStateJ Districts No. operations Geometry & Measurement Patterns & Algebra Data analysis, Discrete Math Problem Solving TOTAL736777

29 Cluster Scores Grade 4 Mathematics 06 % of possible HilltopStateJ Districts No. operations Geometry & Measurement Patterns & Algebra Data analysis, Discrete Math Problem Solving TOTAL776374

30 Cluster Scores Grade 8 Mathematics % of possible MVStateJ Districts Number and Numerical Operations Geometry and Measurement Patterns and Algebra Data Analysis and Discrete Mathematics Knowledge Problem Solving735874

31 Special Education The test results for students whose learning is supported by special education are included in these data. Their results, when compared with special education students in other J districts, are generally above average.

32 So let’s summarize… Our children’s overall proficiency is very strong.

33 And we see that… Our largest interest is to address is Language Arts Literacy. The issues vary from grade to grade. Our best performance is in areas of mathematics—especially in problem solving, in using mathematics.

34 Curriculum Planning Language Arts Literacy Implement instructional practices supported by the latest research Provide on-going training utilizing the practices from Columbia University (Teachers College Writing Project) Develop quarterly prompt, timed writing assessments that are aligned with writing units Collect baseline, mid-year, and final writing assessments to check progress Monitor writing units to ensure specific units are taught prior to the state test

35 Curriculum Planning Mathematics K-4 Develop stronger pre-assessments to help identify strengths and weaknesses of students Plan time to articulate about student work within and across grade levels

36 Curriculum Planning Mathematics 5-8 Recent changes to the math program Rewrote math curriculum at grades 5-8 over the summer of 2006 Developed a basic skills assessment for each grade level to ensure mastery of fundamental skills Developed pre-assessments and administered within the first week of school to help identify student readiness

37 Curriculum Planning Mathematics 5-8 Work to be done this year Implement instructional practices that are supported by the latest research Monitor newly implemented math sequence to ensure students receive the necessary support at each grade level Provide time for teachers to analyze student work and share instructional practices Develop unit tests that follow a similar format and weighting system as the state tests Continue to train teachers in differentiated instruction

38 Finally, thank you for… Being here because you care to know and to help, and Sharing the opportunity to contribute to the growth of these excellent children and young people with us.

39

40

41 So let’s summarize… Grade 3: 91.6% in LA: 96.4% in Math Grade 4: 92.7% in LA; 95.6% in Math Grade 5: 94.6% in LA; 94.6% in Math Grade 6: 87.6% in LA; 79.0% in Math Grade 7: 97.5% in LA; 87.5% in Math Grade 8: 98.3% in LA; 93.1% in Math