1. 1 Mount Olive Township Public Schools Pathways to Excellence First Quarter Report 2014-2014 December 22, 2104

2. District Goals Graduate all students career and college ready  Get kids thinking

3. Metrics used to measure progress Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI)  used to assess reading ability for grades 2-8  provides a lexile score that reflects above grade level, on grade level, or below grade level performance Journeys Benchmark Exams  Used in grades __ - __ to ___ Math in Focus Cumulative Assessments  Used in grades __ - ___ to ___

4. Metrics used to measure progress Quarterly Assessments  Used to assess performance in math, ELA, science and social studies in grades 6 – 12 Marking period grades Differentials  Used to evaluate comparability of marking period grades and quarterly assessment scores

5. Analysis of Data Three reference points  How are we doing compared to standard?  How are we doing compared to ourselves?  How are we doing compared to others?

6. SRI Results – District Comparison of SY 14-15 to 2009-2014 average  Students outperformed the district average on the Sept. and Nov. tests in every grade except 6 th (1 point lower in Sept., 4.4 points lower in Nov.)  The difference between SY 14-15 and the district average widens over time (except grade 6), demonstrating the cumulative effect of improvement in cohort performance over time.

7. SRI Results - District Comparison of SY 14-15 to 2009-2014 average  On the Sept. assessment:  Grade 2 was 25 points higher than 09-14 average  Grade 8 was 66 points higher than 09-14 average  On the Nov. assessment:  Grade 2 was 27 points higher than 09-14 average  Grade 8 was 71 points higher than 09-14 average

8. SRI Results - District Comparison of SY 14-15 to 2009-2014 average  As in previous years, improvement from Sept. to Nov. is greatest in the early grades and gradually flattens over time.  In SY14-15, the greatest improvement from Sept. to Nov. was in grade 2 (98.8 point gain), followed by grade 3 (44.6 point gain) and grade 4 (35.4 point gain). The smallest increase was in grade 8 (7.8 points).

9. SRI Mean Lexile Comparison - Elementary 2009-14 Average vs. 2014-15 SY

10. SRI Mean Lexile Growth - Elementary 2009-14 Average vs. 2014-15 SY

11. Mount Olive Middle School SRI Lexile Growth 2010-14 Average vs. 2014-15 SY

12. Mount Olive District Grades 2-8 SRI Lexile Growth 2009-14 Average vs. 2014-15 SY

13. SRI Results – School v. District Comparison of school performance in SY14-15 to district performance in SY14-15. CMSMt. ViewTincSandshore Grade 2Above Below Grade 3Below Above Grade 4BelowAboveSimilarAbove Grade 5Below Above

14. SRI Results - School, SY 14-15 v. 2009-2014 Comparison of school performance in SY14-15 to average school performance in 2009-2014. CMSMt. ViewTincSandshore Grade 2Above Below Grade 3BelowAbove Grade 4BelowAbove Grade 5Above

15. Chester M. Stephens SRI Lexile Growth 2009-14 Average vs. 2014-15 SY

16. Mountain View SRI Lexile Growth 2009-14 Average vs. 2014-15 SY

17. Sandshore SRI Lexile Growth 2009-14 Average vs. 2014-15 SY

18. Tinc Rd. SRI Lexile Growth 2009-14 Average vs. 2014-15 SY

19. SRI Results – SY 14-15 Sept. 2014 – Grade to grade comparison  The percentage of students who score above grade level increases steadily from grade 2 to grade 8 (9.1% to 51.7%).  The percentage of students who score below grade level decreases from grade 2 to grade 8 (67.9% to 16.6%) with the exception of grade 6.

20. September 2014 SRI Administration Proficiency Levels - District

21. SRI Results – District SY 14-15 Comparison of percentage of students who scored above grade level, on grade level, below grade level on the Sept. and Nov. SRI assessments.  Above grade level performance increased in every grade level (grade 2 – 5).  Below grade level performance decreased in every grade level (grade 2 – 5).  The percent change from Sept. to Nov. in both categories was greatest in grade 2 and decreased for each grade to grade 5.

22. Sept./Nov. District Grade Level Proficiency Comparison

23. SRI Results - School SY 14-15  The percentage of students who scored Above Grade Level increased in each grade, in each school, except 5 th grade in Sandshore, which decreased by 1.5%.  The percentage of students who scored Below Grade Level decreased in each grade, in each school, except Mt. View, which increased by 1.4% in grade 3 and remained the same in grade 4 and grade 5.

24. SRI Results – School SY 14-15  Tinc began the year with the lowest Above Grade Level performance (5%) and highest Below Grade Level performance (77.5%), followed by Sandshore (6% Above and 76.1% Below)  The most significant improvement in grade level performance (Sept. grade 2 to Nov. grade 5) occurred at Sandshore, followed by Tinc.  The highest percentage of Above Grade Level performance was Sanshore grade 5 (41.4%).

25. Sept./Nov. Chester M. Stephens Grade Level Proficiency Comparison

26. Sept./Nov. Mountain View Grade Level Proficiency Comparison

27. Sept./Nov. Sandshore Grade Level Proficiency Comparison

28. Sept./Nov. Tinc Rd. Grade Level Proficiency Comparison

29. Sept./Nov. 2 nd Grade Proficiency Comparison by School

30. Sept./Nov. 3 rd Grade Proficiency Comparison by School

31. Sept./Nov. 4 th Grade Proficiency Comparison by School

32. Sept./Nov. 5 th Grade Proficiency Comparison by School

33. SRI Results – MOMS SY 14-15  The percentage of students who scored Above Grade Level increased in grades 6, 7 and 8.  The percentage of students who scored Below Grade Level decreased in grade 6 and increased by 1.1% in grade 7 an.3% in grade 8.  Seventh grade had the highest percentage of Above Grade Level performance in the district (54.6%).

34. Sept./Nov. MOMS Proficiency Comparison by Grade

35. MOMS Distribution of Marking Period Grades and Quarterly Assessment Scores  Most marking period grades were in the A to B- range, with B being the most commonly earned grade in ELA, math and science. The most common grade in social studies was A.  Q1 assessment scores were distributed more evenly across performance levels.  The most commonly earned grade on the Q1 assessment for each subject area was B.

36. MOMS Q1 Marking Period vs Quarterly Assessment Grade Distribution – All ELA

37. MOMS Q1 Marking Period vs Quarterly Assessment Grade Distribution – All Math

38. MOMS Q1 Marking Period vs Quarterly Assessment Grade Distribution – All Science

39. MOMS Q1 Marking Period vs Quarterly Assessment Grade Distribution – All Social Studies

40. MOMS Difference between Marking Period Average and Quarterly Assessment Average  The marking period average for each subject area was remarkably consistent (85.1 to 85.9).  The quarterly assessment average or each subject area was also consistent (82.2 to 83.3).  Outcomes on both measures, in each grade level, for each subject area, varied from a.3 to 6 point difference.

41. MOMS Q1 Marking Period Average vs Quarterly Assessment Average – All Subjects

42. MOMS Q1 Marking Period Average vs Quarterly Assessment Average – ELA

43. MOMS Q1 Marking Period Average vs Quarterly Assessment Average – Math

44. MOMS Q1 Marking Period Average vs Quarterly Assessment Average – Science

45. MOMS Q1 Marking Period Average vs Quarterly Assessment Average – Social Studies

46. MOHS Distribution of Marking Period Grades and Quarterly Assessment Scores  Most marking period grades were in the A- to B- range, with B being the most commonly earned grade in ELA, math and science and social studies.  Q1 assessment scores were distributed more evenly across performance levels.  The most commonly earned grade on the Q1 assessments for each subject area was B.

47. MOHS Full School Major Subjects First Quarter Grade v First Quarter Exam

48. MOHS Full School English First Quarter Grade v First Quarter Exam

49. MOHS Full School Mathematics First Quarter Grade v First Quarter Exam

50. MOHS Full School Science First Quarter Grade v First Quarter Exam

51. MOHS Full School Social Studies First Quarter Grade v First Quarter Exam

52. MOHS Difference between Marking Period Average and Quarterly Assessment Average  The marking period average for each subject area was remarkably consistent (82.4 to 83.4).  The quarterly assessment average or each subject area was also consistent (80.2 to 83.2).  The average Q1 marking period grade for all subjects was 82.8.  The average Q1 assessment grade was 81.3.

53. MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment Differentials – By Subject

54. MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment Differentials – English I

55. MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment Differentials – English II

56. MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment Differentials – English III

57. MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment Differentials – English IV

58. MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment Differentials – RC English

59. MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment Differentials – Algebra

60. MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment Differentials – Geometry

61. MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment Differentials – CompSci and Prob Stat

62. MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment Differentials – PreCalculus

63. MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment Differentials – RC Math

64. MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment Differentials – Biology

65. MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment Differentials – Chemistry

66. MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment Differentials – Human Anatomy

67. MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment Differentials – Int. Science/STEM

68. MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment Differentials – Physics

69. MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment Differentials – RC Science

70. MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment Differentials – RC History

71. MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment Differentials – US History

72. MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment Differentials – World History 9

73. School Improvement Plans (SIPs)  Each school developed an action plan that includes SMART goals aligned to district goals.  Goals are designed to improve school performance in critical areas:  ELA (all students and at-risk populations)  Mathematics (all students and at-risk populations)  College and Career Readiness (PSAT, SAT, AP)  Technology use and integration  Parent involvement

74. School Improvement Plans (SIPs)  Each SMART goal includes an ambitious target, persons responsible, timeline for action steps, and evidence of impact on learning.  SMART goals are supported by the district’s primary intervention strategies:  Increase time  Teach to understanding  Teach what matters  Increase effort  Personalize learning

75. SMART Goals - MOHS MATH/ELA – Improve teaching and learning practices to meet or exceed the designated PARCC Performance Based Assessment and End-of-Year Exam Targets for “all students” and subgroups in the ESEA Waiver. Schoolwide - % Proficiency ELA = 90% Math = 90% Students with Disabilities - % Proficiency ELA = 74.3% Math = 60.8%

76. Actions, Strategies and Interventions – Regular Education and Special Education Evidence of Impact on Student Learning 1.ELA – New Course – Critical Reading1.Identified 9 th, 10 th and 11 th Grade students scheduled for remedial reading program and PARCC readiness. 2. Math Workshop – 10 th and 11 th Grade 2. (34) students identified and scheduled 3. Foundations of Math Course3. (44) students identified and scheduled 4. Algebra I CP – 9 th and 10 th Grade4. (154) students identified and scheduled 5. Posting for ELA and Math Press and Pull-Out programs instructors 5. Having difficulty procuring services in this area. We will be working with part- time teachers and substitutes. 6. Introducing assignments and assessments utilizing on-line technology devices and tools (Google Forms) 6. December school-wide TESTNAV test run scheduled with Technology Department. MOHS – Increase Time

77. Actions, Strategies and Interventions – Regular Education and Special Education Evidence of Impact on Student Learning 1.ELA Workshop – 10 th and 11 th Grades 1.(45) students identified and scheduled. 2. English I General2. (63) students identified and scheduled 3. PARCC Special Education Support will be scheduled. 3. Use of Compass Learning and Accellus in Lab Center MOHS – Increase Time

78. Actions, Strategies and Interventions – Regular Education and Special Education Evidence of Impact on Student Learning 1. All Essential Questions and Enduring Understandings will be aligned to focus on development and transfer of all skills. 1. Professional Learning Community minutes, Quarterly Exam comparisons, Understanding by Design, Rigor and Relevance 2. Teachers will use exit tickets – Google Classroom tools – flipped classroom – blended classroom techniques to promote “GKT”. 2. Technology reports – Teacher observations – PLC feedback – Student feedback 3. Development and use of PARCC-style EBSR questions, reading selections, and writing prompts in formative and summative assessments 3. Completed at PLC and department meetings – Professional Development /Teacher In-Service Days – September 2 nd and October 13 th 4. PARCC rubric used to assess every writing assignment (Prose Constructed Responses) in ELA and Social Studies, aligning with at least one SGO developed by every ELA and SS team member 4. In-house PARCC-based assessment scores have improved, as evidence by SGO development and tracking. MOHS – Teach to Understanding

79. Actions, Strategies and Interventions – Regular Education and Special Education Evidence of Impact on Student Learning 1. Added exposure to PARCC-style content, format, style, rigor (consistent with our ELA goals from the past 3 years and Math goals for the past year) 1. Students have been given practice PARCC test tutorials and exams on Pearson – practice using online platform and tools specific to testing platform. 2. PARCC trainings, informational sessions, and PLCs will update teachers on PARCC strategies, curricular addendums and skills alignment across the curriculum. 2. PLC minutes, Common Assessments, Unit and Marking Period Assignments and Expectations. MOHS – Teach to Understanding

80. Actions, Strategies and Interventions – Regular Education and Special Education Evidence of Impact on Student Learning 1. All curricula will be aligned with Common Core State Standards. 1. ELA completed and introduced 3 years ago. Math is the process of rewriting course curriculums. SGO Development – Unit Plan Development using Understanding by Design Principles 2.Development and use of PARCC-style EBSR questions, reading selections, and writing prompts in formative and summative assessments 2. Completed at PLC and department meetings – Professional Development/Teacher In-Service Days – September 2 nd and October 13th 3. Assessment multiple choice questions will be written as Evidence-Based Structured Responses (EBSR), modeling PARCC expectations 3. PLC discussions/data analysis and department meeting minutes/trainings MOHS – Teach What Matters

81. Actions, Strategies and Interventions – Regular Education and Special Education Evidence of Impact on Student Learning 1. Students will participate in PARCC Readiness assemblies to heighten awareness and preparation efforts. 1. Class meetings scheduled in September and October to discuss PARCC points of emphasis. 2. Marking Period Grades and Quarterly Expectations are better aligned. 2. Identifying the balance between “earn” and “learn” values has provided students with realistic representations of understanding and learning levels. 3. Renaissance Monthly Academic Recognition Awards 3. Presented by Student Activities Coordinator in conjunction with staff and team leaders. MOHS – Increase Effort

82. Actions, Strategies and Interventions – Regular Education and Special Education Evidence of Impact on Student Learning 1. Use of Technology (Chromebooks, Computer Labs) to enhance the delivery of instruction and student active participation in the learning process. 1. Volume and Quality of Technology Use 2. Use of “flipped”/”blended” classroom techniques and/or on-line remedial programs. 2. Volume and Quality of Technology Use 3. PARCC and Simulated Assessments will assist teachers and students as it pertains individual readiness. 3. Use of technology to practice PARCC assessments and related skills. MOHS – Personalize Learning

83. SMART Goals - MOHS COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS - Improve teaching and learning practices to meet or exceed the designated New Jersey Department of Education Report Card in the area of College and Career Readiness. Improve Scholastic Aptitude Test Participation – 77% to 79% Improve % of Students Scoring a 1550 or Better on the Scholastic Aptitude Test – 61% to 64% Improve Average Scholastic Aptitude Test Score – 1615 to 1620 Increase PSAT Participation - 74% to 77% - Juniors Increase Number of Students Enrolled in Advanced Placement Courses Increase Number of Advanced Placement Exams Administered -356 to 365 Increase the % of Students Taking at Least (1) Advanced Placement Exam in Science, Math, Language Arts, or Social Studies

84. Actions, Strategies and InterventionsEvidence of Impact on Student Learning 1.Mount Olive High School will increase the percentage of students who participate in the PSAT. 1. Successfully promoted by Guidance Department, Administration and Board of Education. College and Career Readiness 2005200620072008200920102011201220132014 11th Graders266252276223224198180187266264 10th Graders186176175205192182178146162190

85. Actions, Strategies and InterventionsEvidence of Impact on Student Learning 1. Mount Olive High School will increase the percentage of students participating in the Scholastic Aptitude Test. 1. Promoted through the Guidance Department, Administration and Staff. Class meeting presentations emphasized SAT Registration, Preparation, and Performance. 2. Mount Olive High School will increase the percentage of students earning a 1550 or above on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. 2. 3. Mount Olive High School will increase the number of enrollments in Advanced Placement courses 3. Promotion of Advanced Placement goals with scheduling and college readiness. 4. Mount Olive High School will increase the number of Advanced Placement exams administered to students enrolled in Advanced Placement courses. 4. Promotion of Advanced Placement goals from staff and administration. Current incentive program under review by the Board of Education. MOHS - College and Career Readiness

86. MOMS Sample SIP Strategies NWEA Testing – To determine students’ areas of strength and weakness. Any student 210 or below on the NJASK from 2013-2014 was tested. MOMS Academy – Direct, small group instruction after school in ELA/MATH for academically at risk students identified through multiple measures (grades, NJASK, teacher rec). Provides an individualized learning path developed through Compass Learning or Accellus. Paths consist of 5 skills per marking period. BSI/Title I interventions – All students 210 or below scheduled for supplemental instruction every other day Lunch/3R Support Program – Supports students who are unable to attend the MOMS academy in the afternoon.

87. MOMS SIP Technology Goal Students will use technology in the classroom a minimum of 2 hours per day. Google Docs- All team teachers have been trained in Google Docs. A graduated roll out and training began in October. All ELA, SS, Science teachers are now using Google Docs for writing assignments and homework. Quizlet was introduced at a faculty meeting. MOMS is using all technology resources to prepare our students for 21 st Century Skills as well as PARCC. Amplify Rollout – All Amplify tablets have been deployed and are in use. 8 th grade teachers in all academic areas are using the tablets for internet usage or with the specialized program Amplify provides. Technology at MOMS is approximately 6393 hours of usage for the month of November. Per student, it is 5.3 hours per student over a ten day period

88. SIP – Compass Utilization

89. SIP - Edu Trends – Nov 2014

90. SIPs – Elementary Strategies  Increase time  Sizzle (before school program)  STARS (after school program)  BSI (supplemental during school program)  Revision of master schedule (Sandshore)  Teach to Understanding  Data from benchmark assessments to ensure mastery  Re-teach, retake policy for grades below C  Smart shots (videotaped checks for understanding)

91. SIPs – Elementary Strategies  Teach What Matters  PLCs develop lessons and assessments that address curriculum and PARCC readiness  SGOs focus on areas in need of improvement  Implementation of standards-based report cards  Increase Effort  Powerschool parent portal and automated notifications  Rewards/recognitions for student achievement

92. SIPs – Elementary Strategies  Personalize Missing Skills  Targeted instruction in small group settings  Compass Learning  Dreambox  Accellus  Response to Intervention

93. SIP School-based Initiatives  Monthly parent tip sheets and meetings (Sandshore)  Great Books for literacy (Sandshore)  25 Book Initiative (Mt. View)  Minute Math Clubs (Mt. View)  Math 24/First in Math (Mt. View, Tinc, Sandshore)  AIMSWeb weekly progress monitoring (CMS)  Parent Institutes and Coffee with Principal (CMS)  Videotaped lessons analyzed in PLCs (CMS)  Razz for Kids (Tinc)