MOUNT OLIVE TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS 2015 End of Year Academic Achievement Report

For the first time, the Mount Olive schools tested all* students on the new PARCC assessment. The new state program was based on the Common Core State Standards, which drastically raised “the bar” for students expectations. * A good number of Mount Olive students refused to take the PARCC test in As many as 20% of high school students refused, 15% of Middle schoolers, and around 6-8% of elementary school students. VISIONFORPUBLICEDUCATIONINNEWJERSEY

 In 2015, New Jersey adopted the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) to replace HSPA and previous assessments in the elementary and middle school in language arts and mathematics.  Students took PARCC English Language Arts and Literacy Assessments (ELA/L) in grades 3 – 11.  Students took PARCC Mathematics Assessments in grades 3 – 8 and End of Course Assessments in Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II. NEW JERSEY’S STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

“New Jersey will educate all students to prepare them to lead productive, fulfilling lives. Through a public education system that is seamlessly aligned from pre-school to college, students will gain the requisite academic knowledge and technical and critical thinking skills for life and work in the 21 st century.” Why PARCC?

RAISING STANDARDS 2009 : New Jersey adopted higher course taking requirements for all students : New Jersey adopted the Common Core State Standards in English Language Ar ts and Mathematics. College and Career Ready Standards “Align New Jersey high school standards and graduation requirements to college and workforce entry requirements.” – NJ High School Redesign Steering Committee (HSRSC ) New Jersey has adopted standards that “are widely recognized as appropriate standards for college and career readiness.” - College and Career Ready Taskforce (CCRT- 2012)

NEXT STEPS: REPLACE HSPA “Currently the New Jersey High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) does not measure college or work readiness…Further, New Jersey colleges and universities do not use scores from the HSPA for admissions or placement, because the test does not reflect postsecondary placement requirements.” (HSRSC )

 Level 1: Not yet meeting grade-level expectations  Level 2: Partially meeting grade-level expectations  Level 3: Approaching grade-level expectations  Level 4: Meeting grade-level expectations  Level 5: Exceeding grade-level expectations PARCC PERFORMANCE LEVELS

Not Yet Meeting (Level 1) Partially Meeting (Level 2) Approaching Expectations (Level 3) Meeting Expectations (Level 4) Exceeding Expectations (Level 5) % >= Level 4 Grade 315%18%24%39%5%44% Grade 48%15%27%39%12%51% Grade 57%15%26%45%6%52% Grade 68%16%28%40%9%49% Grade 711%15%23%34%18%52% Grade 812%15%22%39%13%52% Grade 918%19%24%30%10%40% Grade 1025%18%20%26%11%37% Grade 1117%19%24%30%11%41% NEW JERSEY’S 2015 PARCC OUTCOMES ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY Note: Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Not Yet Meeting (Level 1) Partially Meeting (Level 2) Approaching Expectations (Level 3) Meeting Expectations (Level 4) Exceeding Expectations (Level 5) % >= Level 4 Grade 38%19%28%37%8%45% Grade 47%22%30%36%4%41% Grade 56%21%32%35%6%41% Grade 68%21%30%35%6%41% Grade 78%22%33% 4%37% Grade 8*22%26%28%23%1%24% Algebra I14%25% 33%3%36% Geometry12%36%30%20%3%22% Algebra II32%25%20%22%2%24% NEW JERSEY’S 2015 PARCC OUTCOMES MATHEMATICS * Note: Approximately 30,000 New Jersey students participated in the PARCC Algebra I assessment while in middle school. Thus, PARCC Math 8 outcomes are not representative of grade 8 performance as a whole. Note: Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

2015 PARCC ELA/L Grade 4 51% 2013 NAEP Reading Grade 442% PARCC OUTCOMES IN CONTEXT 2015 SAT: 44 % met College and Career Ready Benchmark 2015 ACT: 43 % met College and Career Ready Benchmark PARCC Math Grade 441% 2013 NAEP Math Grade 449% 2015 PARCC ELA/L Grade 852% 2013 NAEP Reading Grade 846% 2015 PARCC ELA/L Grade 1141% 2013 NAEP Reading Grade 1241% 2015 PARCC Algebra I36% 2011 ADP Algebra I35% NAEP: National Assessment of Educational Progress ADP: American Diploma Project

END-OF-COURSE MATH OUTCOMES, % MEETING/EXCEEDING EXPECTATIONS ADP Algebra I (2011) PARCC Algebra I (2015) PARCC Geometry (2015) PARCC Algebra II (2015) Count% % % % Grade %6692% Grade 7 3,00194%3,53693% Grade 8 29,71570%27,49872%2,97392%45973% Grade 9 61,17721%53,65618%20,27947%4,72070% Grade 10 8,9695%5,5424%41,9308%20,71039% Grade 11 2,1824%1,3984%5,8952%32,0927% Comparisons of previous efforts to assess students with the state PARCC results

ALGEBRA IPARCC OUTCOMES AND COURSE GRADES PARCC Algebra I (2015) Percent “C” or higher in Algebra I course AY1415 Count% Meeting or Exceeding Count*% >= C Grade %62100% Grade 7 3,53693%3,30594% Grade 8 27,49872%24,94489% Grade 9 53,65618%44,92367% Grade 10 5,5424%3,17048% Grade 11 1,3984%62346% Looking for mismatches between outcomes and expectations is an important first step, i.e., roughly 18% of freshman met or exceeded expectations in PARCC Algebra I yet 67% received Cs or better in their course. * Based on an overall 84% match rate at a student-level between NJSMART course roster collection and PARCC Algebra I assessment data.

Count of Valid Test Scores Not Yet Meeting (Level 1) Partially Meeting (Level 2) Approaching Expectations (Level 3) Meeting Expectations (Level 4) Exceeding Expectation (Level 5) District % >= Level 4 NJ % >= Level 4 Grade % Grade % Grade %51% Grade % Grade % Grade % Grade % Grade % Grade * (54) 41% (64%) MOUNT OLIVE TOWNSHIP SCHOOL’S 2015 PARCC GRADE-LEVEL OUTCOMES ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY

4's, 5's State1's, 2's GradeSubjectSchoolNJPARCC%Compare% 3ELATR SS MV CMS ELASS TR MV CMS ELASS TR CMS MV Mount Olive Comparison to State/ National ELA Results By Percentage

4's, 5's State1's, 2's 6ELAMOMS ELAMOMS ELAMOMS ELAMOHS ELAMOHS ELAMOHS Mount Olive Comparison to State/ National ELA Results By Percentage

Count of Valid Test Scores Not Yet Meeting (Level 1) Partially Meeting (Level 2) Approaching Expectations (Level 3) Meeting Expectations (Level 4) Exceeding Expectation (Level 5) District % >= Level 4 NJ % >= Level 4 Grade % Grade %40% Grade % Grade % Grade % Grade 8* % Algebra I % Geometry * (59) 22% (53%) Algebra II * (57) 24% (44%) Mount Olive 2015 PARCC GRADE-LEVEL OUTCOMES MATHEMATICS

4's, 5's State1's, 2's GradeSubjectSchoolNJPARCC%Compare% 3MathTR SS MV CMS MathMV TR SS CMS MathTR SS CMS MV Mount Olive Comparison to State/ National Math Results By Percentage

4's, 5's State1's, 2's 6MathMOMS MathMOMS MathMOMS Algebra 1MOMS Algebra 1MOHS GeometryMOHS Algebra 2MOHS Mount Olive Comparison to State/ National Math Results By Percentage

CHESTER M. STEPHENS RESULTS ELA Count of Valid Test Scores Not Yet Meeting (Level 1) Partially Meeting (Level 2) Approaching Expectations (Level 3) Meeting Expectations (Level 4) Exceeding Expectation (Level 5) School % >= Level 4 NJ % >= Level 4 Grade % Grade % Grade % MATH Count of Valid Test Scores Not Yet Meeting (Level 1) Partially Meeting (Level 2) Approaching Expectations (Level 3) Meeting Expectations (Level 4) Exceeding Expectation (Level 5) District % >= Level 4 NJ % >= Level 4 Grade % Grade %40% Grade %

Mountain View Results ELA Count of Valid Test Scores Not Yet Meeting (Level 1) Partially Meeting (Level 2) Approaching Expectations (Level 3) Meeting Expectations (Level 4) Exceeding Expectation (Level 5) School % >= Level 4 NJ % >= Level 4 Grade % Grade % Grade % MATH Count of Valid Test Scores Not Yet Meeting (Level 1) Partially Meeting (Level 2) Approaching Expectations (Level 3) Meeting Expectations (Level 4) Exceeding Expectation (Level 5) District % >= Level 4 NJ % >= Level 4 Grade % Grade % Grade %

ELA Count of Valid Test Scores Not Yet Meeting (Level 1) Partially Meeting (Level 2) Approaching Expectations (Level 3) Meeting Expectations (Level 4) Exceeding Expectation (Level 5) School % >= Level 4 NJ % >= Level 4 Grade % Grade % Grade % MATH Count of Valid Test Scores Not Yet Meeting (Level 1) Partially Meeting (Level 2) Approaching Expectations (Level 3) Meeting Expectations (Level 4) Exceeding Expectation (Level 5) District % >= Level 4 NJ % >= Level 4 Grade % Grade % Grade % Sandshore Results

ELA Count of Valid Test Scores Not Yet Meeting (Level 1) Partially Meeting (Level 2) Approaching Expectations (Level 3) Meeting Expectations (Level 4) Exceeding Expectation (Level 5) School % >= Level 4 NJ % >= Level 4 Grade % Grade % Grade % MATH Count of Valid Test Scores Not Yet Meeting (Level 1) Partially Meeting (Level 2) Approaching Expectations (Level 3) Meeting Expectations (Level 4) Exceeding Expectation (Level 5) District % >= Level 4 NJ % >= Level 4 Grade % Grade % Grade % Tinc Road Results

Mount Olive Middle School Results ELA Count of Valid Test Scores Not Yet Meeting (Level 1) Partially Meeting (Level 2) Approaching Expectations (Level 3) Meeting Expectations (Level 4) Exceeding Expectation (Level 5) School % >= Level 4 NJ % >= Level 4 Grade % Grade % Grade % MATH Count of Valid Test Scores Not Yet Meeting (Level 1) Partially Meeting (Level 2) Approaching Expectations (Level 3) Meeting Expectations (Level 4) Exceeding Expectation (Level 5) District % >= Level 4 NJ % >= Level 4 Grade % Grade % Grade 8* % Algebra %

Mount Olive High School Results ELA Count of Valid Test Scores Not Yet Meeting (Level 1) Partially Meeting (Level 2) Approaching Expectations (Level 3) Meeting Expectations (Level 4) Exceeding Expectation (Level 5) School % >= Level 4 NJ % >= Level 4 Grade % Grade % Grade * (54) 41% (64%) MATH Count of Valid Test Scores Not Yet Meeting (Level 1) Partially Meeting (Level 2) Approaching Expectations (Level 3) Meeting Expectations (Level 4) Exceeding Expectation (Level 5) District % >= Level 4 NJ % >= Level 4 Algebra I % Geometry * (59) 22% (53%) Algebra II * (57) 24% (44%)

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 YEAR ONE DATA ANALYSIS PLAN: DRILLING DOWN

VIDEO: UNDERSTANDING THE SCORE REPORT

PARENT GUIDE TO THE SCORE REPORTS

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FOR PARENTS

Science Results State Assessment The New Jersey State assessment for science in 2015 was the NJASK. The following slides describe student performances on the state assessment.

2015 NJASK Science by Building

District NJASK Science Since 2012

Chester M. Stephens NJASK Science Since 2012

Mountain View NJASK Science Since 2012

Sandshore NJASK Science Since 2012

Tinc Road NJASK Science Since 2012

MOMS NJASK Science Since 2012

District NJASK Science Total Proficient v. Partially Proficient

Chester M. Stephens NJASK Science Total Proficient v. Partially Proficient

Mountain View NJASK Science Total Proficient v. Partially Proficient

Sandshore NJASK Science Total Proficient v. Partially Proficient

Tinc Road NJASK Science Total Proficient v. Partially Proficient

Mount Olive Middle School NJASK Science Total Proficient v. Partially Proficient

Internal Math Results

Analysis Math achievement is assessed each year in grades 1-8 using the districts instructional text; Math In Focus. The end year result is derived from the FINAL Benchmark exam for Math in Focus. The results on the next few slides summarize what could be considered the highlights of the math achievement program: A score of 75 percentage correct is considered as “meeting expectations”. The designation was designed by Mount Olive Instructional Staff. The Benchmark expectation is well above what might be considered a “state average expectation” for the content and grade. Every first grade program met the district standard. Math students of Mountain View and Sandshore performed the best; well above average at around 82% correct. Only Mountain View met the expectation among second grades in the district; performing considerably better than Tinc, CMS, and Sandshore (which scored in the 65-68% range). None of the districts third grade programs met the district standard. Mountain View’s students came closest at around 73% on average. Fourth grade students at Sandshore met the expectation. No other school came close with CMS fourth graders scoring less than 40% correct on average. None of the district’s fifth grade students met expectation levels on the end year benchmark. Sandshore students came closest (71%) with Tinc and CMS students averaging in the low 40’s. Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth grade students made gains on the assessment they use to measure math achievement (the NWEA assessment). It should be noted that not every students was assessed with this instrument; only those that were previously determined to be struggling in the content field.

2014 – 2015 End of Year Math-in-Focus Benchmark Assessment Grade 1

2014 – 2015 End of Year Math-in-Focus Benchmark Assessment Grade 2

2014 – 2015 End of Year Math-in-Focus Benchmark Assessment Grade 3

2014 – 2015 End of Year Math-in-Focus Benchmark Assessment Grade 4

2014 – 2015 End of Year Math-in-Focus Benchmark Assessment Grade 5

Internal READING RESULTS

Analysis Math achievement is assessed each year in grades 1-8 using the districts instructional text; Math In Focus. The end year result is derived from the FINAL Benchmark exam for Math in Focus. The results on the next few slides summarize what could be considered the highlights of the math achievement program: A score of 75 percentage correct is considered as “meeting expectations”. The designation was designed by Mount Olive Instructional Staff. The Benchmark expectation is well above what might be considered a “state average expectation” for the content and grade. Every first grade program met the district standard. Math students of Mountain View and Sandshore performed the best; well above average at around 82% correct. Only Mountain View met the expectation among second grades in the district; performing considerably better than Tinc, CMS, and Sandshore (which scored in the 65-68% range). None of the districts third grade programs met the district standard. Mountain View’s students came closest at around 73% on average. Fourth grade students at Sandshore met the expectation. No other school came close with CMS fourth graders scoring less than 40% correct on average. None of the district’s fifth grade students met expectation levels on the end year benchmark. Sandshore students came closest (71%) with Tinc and CMS students averaging in the low 40’s.

Comparison First Grade Lexile Averages by School – Identified K- Excel v. Lowest 3 rd non K-Excel v. All non K-Excel “All Non K-Excel” includes “Lowest 3 rd Non K-Excel” by definition

Beginning Reader Percentage and Average Lexile by School (First Grade) Percent of First Grade Students Scoring BR (<100) by School Average SRI Lexile Score by School

Lexile Growth by Grade Grade 2Grade 3

Lexile Growth by Grade Grade 4Grade 5

District 2 nd Grade Above Grade v. Below Grade Growth

District 3 rd Grade Above Grade v. Below Grade Growth

District 4 th Grade Above Grade v. Below Grade Growth

District 5 th Grade Above Grade v. Below Grade Growth

Mount Olive MS Grades 6-8 Proficiency Level Growth

Beginning Reader Percentage and Average Lexile by School (First Grade) Percent of First Grade Students Scoring BR (<100) by School Average SRI Lexile Score by School

Comparison of SRI Growth in Grades 2-5 Students in Regular Education vs. Intervention Programs (Reading Specialist & ELA Basic Skills Programs) Debra J. Martin, Ed.D. Reading SpecialistsBSI Teachers Journie CifelliJen Bond Edith SeelJoanne Bosco Kathryn VizzoneKaren Husser Kerrie McDermott

General Observations of SRI Data Results for CMS Suggested annual average SRI growth ranges from Lexile points. CMS students in regular education classes and literacy intervention programs at all grade levels scored above the suggested annual Lexile growth levels. SRI and MetaMetrics indicate that the amount of growth between fall and spring tends to decrease as grade level increases. CMS results at all grade levels aligned with this trend. CMS students participating in the Reading and BSI intervention programs (Gr. 2-5) demonstrated more growth than their peers in the regular classroom. Significant growth by students participating in the intervention programs was noted in grades 2 and 3. 6/23/201566

Average SRI Growth in 2nd Grade Reading Intervention Students is Lexile Points * Students # 13,14, 16, 18, 25 scored a BR 0 on the Fall SRI.

6/23/201568

Average SRI Growth in 3rd Grade BSI Intervention Students is Lexile Points 6/23/201569

6/23/201570

Average SRI Growth in 4th Grade BSI Intervention Students is 102 Lexile Points 6/23/201571

6/23/201572

Average SRI Growth in 5th Grade BSI Intervention Students is 96 Lexile Points 6/23/201573

6/23/201574

6/23/201575

General Observations of SRI Data Results for Mt. View Suggested annual average SRI growth ranges from Lexile points. MV students in regular education classes in Grades 2,3, and 5 and literacy intervention programs at all grade levels scored above the suggested annual Lexile growth levels. SRI and MetaMetrics indicate that the amount of growth between fall and spring tends to decrease as grade level increases. Grades 2, 3 and 4 results aligned with this trend. MV students participating in the Reading and BSI intervention programs (Gr. 2-5) demonstrated more growth than their peers in the regular classroom. Significant growth by students participating in the intervention programs was noted in grades 2 and 4. 6/23/201576

Average SRI Growth in 2nd Grade Reading Intervention Students is Lexile Points 6/23/201577

6/23/201578

Average SRI Growth in 3rd Grade BSI Intervention Students is Lexile Points 6/23/201579

6/23/201580

Average SRI Growth in 4 th Grade BSI Intervention Students is Lexile Points 6/23/201581

6/23/201582

Average SRI Growth in 5 th Grade BSI Intervention Students is 79.9 Lexile Points 6/23/201583

6/23/201584

6/23/201585

General Observations of SRI Data Results for Sandshore Suggested annual average SRI growth ranges from Lexile points. SS students in regular education classes in Grades 2,3, and 4 and literacy intervention programs in Grades 2,3, and 5 scored above the suggested annual Lexile growth levels. SRI and MetaMetrics indicate that the amount of growth between fall and spring tends to decrease as grade level increases. SS students participating in the Reading and BSI intervention programs (Gr. 2-5) demonstrated more growth than their peers in Grades 2,3, and 5. Significant growth by students participating in the intervention programs was noted in grades 2 and 3. 6/23/201586

Average SRI Growth in 2nd Grade Reading Intervention Students is Lexile Points 6/23/201587

6/23/201588

Average SRI Growth in 3rd Grade BSI Intervention Students is Lexile Points 6/23/201589

6/23/201590

Average SRI Growth in 4th Grade BSI Intervention Students is 71.6 Lexile Points 6/23/201591

6/23/201592

Average SRI Growth in 5th Grade BSI Intervention Students is 92.5 Lexile Points 6/23/201593

6/23/201594

6/23/201595

General Observations of SRI Data Results for Tinc Road Suggested annual average SRI growth ranges from Lexile points. TR students in regular education classes and literacy intervention programs at all grade levels scored above the suggested annual Lexile growth levels. SRI and MetaMetrics indicate that the amount of growth between fall and spring tends to decrease as grade level increases. TR results at all grade levels aligned with this trend. TR students participating in the Reading and BSI intervention programs (Gr. 2-5) demonstrated more growth than their peers in Grades 2 and 3. 6/23/201596

Average SRI Growth in 2 nd Grade Reading Intervention Students is Lexile Points 6/23/201597

6/23/201598

Average SRI Growth in 3 rd Grade BSI Intervention Students is Lexile Points 6/23/201599

6/23/

Average SRI Growth in 4 th Grade BSI Intervention Students is Lexile Points 6/23/

6/23/

Average SRI Growth in 5 th Grade BSI Intervention Students is 87.6 Lexile Points 6/23/

6/23/

6/23/

Students in intervention programs in Gr. 2-5 demonstrated higher average SRI growth than students in regular education classrooms. Average growth of intervention students = Lexile points Average growth of regular education students = Lexile points 6/23/

Reading Interventions K Excel

Comparison First Grade Lexile Averages by School – Identified K- Excel v. Lowest 3 rd non K-Excel v. All non K-Excel “All Non K-Excel” includes “Lowest 3 rd Non K-Excel” by definition

Comparison of SRI Growth in Grades 2-5 Students in Regular Education vs. Intervention Programs (Reading Specialist & ELA Basic Skills Programs)

Students in intervention programs in Gr. 2-5 demonstrated higher average SRI growth than students in regular education classrooms. Average growth of intervention students = Lexile points Average growth of regular education students = Lexile points 6/23/

Mount Olive High School

College and Career Readiness Accomplishments National Recognition for Excellence Improved Scholastic Aptitude Test Participation – 77% to 79% Improved % of Students Scoring a 1550 or Better on the Scholastic Aptitude Test – 61% to 64% Improved Average Scholastic Aptitude Test Score – 1615 to 1620 Increased PSAT Participation - 74% to 77% - Juniors Increased the % of Students Taking at Least (1) Advanced Placement Exam in Science, Math, Language Arts, or Social Studies Increased Google Classroom usage with more than 1400 student use computers Critical Reading class introduction Workshops for ELA and Math Dramas and the LED screen

Year# of Tests 54321Avg.% 3,4, % % % % % % % % % % % % Mount Olive High School Advanced Placement Comparison

SAT Comparisons

th Graders th Graders

PSAT Enrollment %75%77%81%62%61%52%50%52%74%72% 77% 52% 50%

PSAT Enrollmen t %56%51%50%63%50%47%49%42%43%52% 56%51%50% 63% 50% 47% 49% 42% * Represents 10 th graders who completed Geometry

Mount Olive High School End of Year Grade Distribution – All Major Subjects

Mount Olive High School End of Year Grade Distribution – 9 th Grade All Major Subjects

Mount Olive High School End of Year Grade Distribution – 10 th Grade All Major Subjects

Mount Olive High School End of Year Grade Distribution – 11 th Grade All Major Subjects

Mount Olive High School End of Year Grade Distribution – 12 th Grade All Major Subjects

Mount Olive High School 4 th MP Grade Distribution by Grade Level

Mount Olive High School Final Exam Grade Distribution by Grade Level

Mount Olive High School End of Year Grade Distribution by Grade Level

Mount Olive High School End of Year English Grade Distribution

Mount Olive High School End of Year English 9 th Grade Distribution

Mount Olive High School End of Year English 10 th Grade Distribution

Mount Olive High School End of Year English 11 th Grade Distribution

Mount Olive High School End of Year English 12 th Grade Distribution

Mount Olive High School End of Year Math Grade Distribution

Mount Olive High School End of Year Math 9 th Grade Distribution

Mount Olive High School End of Year Math 10 th Grade Distribution

Mount Olive High School End of Year Math 11 th Grade Distribution

Mount Olive High School End of Year Math 12 th Grade Distribution

Mount Olive High School End of Year Science Grade Distribution

Mount Olive High School End of Year Science 9 th Grade Distribution

Mount Olive High School End of Year Science 10 th Grade Distribution

Mount Olive High School End of Year Science 11 th Grade Distribution

Mount Olive High School End of Year Science 12 th Grade Distribution

Mount Olive High School End of Year Social Studies Grade Distribution

Mount Olive High School End of Year Social Studies 9 th Grade Distribution

Mount Olive High School End of Year Social Studies 10 th Grade Distribution

Mount Olive High School End of Year Social Studies 11 th Grade Distribution

Mount Olive High School End of Year Social Studies 12 th Grade Distribution

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – All Major Subjects

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – Special Education

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – English

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – English I

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – English II

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – English III

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – English IV

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – English AP

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – English Electives

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – Mathematics

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – Algebra

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – Geometry

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – Pre-Calculus

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – Calculus

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – Probability & Statistics

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – Computer Science

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – Foundational Math

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – Science

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – Biology

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – Chemistry

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – Physics

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – Environmental Science

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – Science Electives

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – Social Studies

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – US History I

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – US History II

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – World History 9

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – AP European History

Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – Social Studies Electives

Bonus Slides

Mount Olive High School Marking Period Grade Distribution – All Major Subjects

Mount Olive High School Marking Period Grade Distribution – English

Mount Olive High School Marking Period Grade Distribution – Mathematics

Mount Olive High School Marking Period Grade Distribution – Science

Mount Olive High School Marking Period Grade Distribution – Social Studies

Mount Olive High School Marking Period Grade Distribution – Special Education

Mount Olive Middle School

Mount Olive Middle School th MP Grade Distribution All Students

Mount Olive Middle School th MP Grade Distribution All 6 th Grade Students

Mount Olive Middle School th MP Grade Distribution All 7 th Grade Students

Mount Olive Middle School th MP Grade Distribution All 8 th Grade Students

Mount Olive Middle School th MP Grade Distribution All ELA

Mount Olive Middle School th MP Grade Distribution 6 th Grade ELA

Mount Olive Middle School th MP Grade Distribution 7 th Grade ELA

Mount Olive Middle School th MP Grade Distribution 8 th Grade ELA

Mount Olive Middle School th MP Grade Distribution All Mathematics

Mount Olive Middle School th MP Grade Distribution 6 th Grade Mathematics

Mount Olive Middle School th MP Grade Distribution 7 th Grade Mathematics

Mount Olive Middle School th MP Grade Distribution 8 th Grade Mathematics

Mount Olive Middle School th MP Grade Distribution All Science

Mount Olive Middle School th MP Grade Distribution 6 th Grade Science

Mount Olive Middle School th MP Grade Distribution 7 th Grade Science

Mount Olive Middle School th MP Grade Distribution 8 th Grade Science

Mount Olive Middle School th MP Grade Distribution Social Studies

Mount Olive Middle School th MP Grade Distribution 6 th Grade Social Studies

Mount Olive Middle School th MP Grade Distribution 7 th Grade Social Studies

Mount Olive Middle School th MP Grade Distribution 8 th Grade Social Studies

Mount Olive Middle School 4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison

4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 6 th Grade

4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 6 th Grade Language Arts

4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 6 th Grade Mathematics

4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 6 th Grade Science

4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 6 th Grade Social Studies

4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 7 th Grade

4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 7 th Grade Language Arts

4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 7 th Grade Mathematics

4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 7 th Grade Science

4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 7 th Grade Social Studies

4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 8 th Grade

4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 8 th Grade Language Arts

4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 8 th Grade Mathematics

4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 8 th Grade Science

4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 8 th Grade Social Studies

Bonus Slides

Mount Olive Middle School 4 Quarter Grade Distribution – 4 Major Subjects All Grades

Mount Olive Middle School 4 Quarter Grade Distribution – 4 Major Subjects 6 th Grade

Mount Olive Middle School 4 Quarter Grade Distribution – 4 Major Subjects 7 th Grade

Mount Olive Middle School 4 Quarter Grade Distribution – 4 Major Subjects 8 th Grade

Mount Olive Middle School 4 Quarter Grade Distribution – Language Arts

Mount Olive Middle School 4 Quarter Grade Distribution – 6 th Grade Language Arts

Mount Olive Middle School 4 Quarter Grade Distribution – 7 th Grade Language Arts

Mount Olive Middle School 4 Quarter Grade Distribution – 8 th Grade Language Arts

Mount Olive Middle School 4 Quarter Grade Distribution – Mathematics

Mount Olive Middle School 4 Quarter Grade Distribution – 6 th Grade Mathematics

Mount Olive Middle School 4 Quarter Grade Distribution – 7 th Grade Mathematics

Mount Olive Middle School 4 Quarter Grade Distribution – 8 th Grade Mathematics

Mount Olive Middle School 4 Quarter Grade Distribution – Science

Mount Olive Middle School 4 Quarter Grade Distribution – 6 th Grade Science

Mount Olive Middle School 4 Quarter Grade Distribution – 7 th Grade Science

Mount Olive Middle School 4 Quarter Grade Distribution – 8 th Grade Science

Mount Olive Middle School 4 Quarter Grade Distribution – Social Studies

Mount Olive Middle School 4 Quarter Grade Distribution – 6 th Grade Social Studies

Mount Olive Middle School 4 Quarter Grade Distribution – 7 th Grade Social Studies

Mount Olive Middle School 4 Quarter Grade Distribution – 8 th Grade Social Studies

College and Career Readiness Challenges National PARCC Participation rates Grade differentials for tested subjects (science and math in particular) Increase in off task and counter-productive technology use Lagging Sunset enrollment