1. Dr. Alex Anemone, Superintendent November 17, 2014

2.  Testing dates: October 6-24, 2014  Grade 2: Math and Reading  Grades 3-8: Math, Reading, and Language Usage  MAP is completed online and has predictive value.  Approximately 50-55 questions per subject.  RIT is the equal interval score unit.

3. Part. Prof. Predicted Part. Prof. Actual Proficient Predicted Proficient Actual Adv. Prof. Predicted Adv. Prof. Actual Math18.7%11.2%50.2%35.4%31.0%53.4% ELA18.0%13.6%64.4%68.0%17.6%18.4%

4. MAP for Prim. Grades Low 1- 20%ile LoAvg 21- 40%ile Avg 41- 60%ile HiAvg 61- 80%ile High 81- 99%ile HTS Mean RIT National Mean RIT Math0 (0%)2 (6%)4 (12%)6 (18%)21(64%)193.1178.2 Reading0 (0%)2 (6%)5 (15%)7 (21%)19 (58%)190.4175.9

5. MAPLow 1- 20%ile LoAvg 21- 40%ile Avg 41- 60%ile HiAvg 61- 80%ile High 81- 99%ile HTS Mean RIT National Mean RIT Math0 (0%)2 (8%)3 (12%)11 (42%)10 (38%)200.4192.1 Reading0 (0%) 3 (12%)4 (15%)19 (73%)206.4189.9 Lang. Usage 0 (0%) 3 (12%)7 (27%)16 (62%)204.8191.1

6. MAPLow 1- 20%ile LoAvg 21- 40%ile Avg 41- 60%ile HiAvg 61- 80%ile High 81- 99%ile HTS Mean RIT National Mean RIT Math3 (7%)4 (10%)11 (27%)10 (24%)13 (32%)209.6203.8 Reading2 (5%)1 (2%)9 (22%)15 (37%)14 (34%)210.2199.8 Lang. Usage 3 (8%)1 (3%)6 (15%)14 (35%)16 (40%)209.1200.9

7. MAPLow 1- 20%ile LoAvg 21- 40%ile Avg 41- 60%ile HiAvg 61- 80%ile High 81- 99%ile HTS Mean RIT National Mean RIT Math1 (3%)3 (8%)5 (13%)10 (26%)20 (51%)226.7212.9 Reading2 (5%)1 (3%)5 (13%)13 (33%)18 (46%)218.3207.1 Lang. Usage 1 (3%)2 (5%)4 (10%)13 (33%)19 (49%)219.3208.0

8. MAPLow 1- 20%ile LoAvg 21- 40%ile Avg 41- 60%ile HiAvg 61- 80%ile High 81- 99%ile HTS Mean RIT National Mean RIT Math3 (9%)5 (15%)3 (9%)16 (47%)7 (21%)224.0219.6 Reading1 (3%)5 (15%)3 (9%)11 (32%)14 (41%)220.4212.3 Lang. Usage 2 (6%)3 (9%)5 (15%)7 (21%)17 (50%)221.0212.3

9. MAPLow 1- 20%ile LoAvg 21- 40%ile Avg 41- 60%ile HiAvg 61- 80%ile High 81- 99%ile HTS Mean RIT National Mean RIT Math4 (19%)3 (14%)5 (24%) 4 (19%)228.4225.6 Reading3 (14%)4 (19%) 5 (24%) 218.6216.3 Lang. Usage 3 (14%)2 (10%)4(19%)5 (24%)7 (33%)220.6215.8

10. MAPLow 1- 20%ile LoAvg 21- 40%ile Avg 41- 60%ile HiAvg 61- 80%ile High 81- 99%ile HTS Mean RIT National Mean RIT Math6 (19%)1 (3%)10 (31%)5 (16%)10 (31%)233.5230.2 Reading6 (19%)0 (0%)7 (22%)9 (28%)10 (31%)225.2219.3 Lang. Usage 2 (6%)4 (13%)5 (16%)10 (31%)11 (34%)226.6218.7

11. HTS Math RITNational Math RIT Difference RIT Grade 2193.1178.2+14.9 Grade 3200.4192.1+8.3 Grade 4209.6203.8+5.8 Grade 5226.7212.9+13.8 Grade 6224.0219.6+4.4 Grade 7228.4225.6+2.8 Grade 8233.5230.2+3.3

13. HTS Reading RITNational Reading RIT Difference RIT Grade 2190.4175.9+14.5 Grade 3206.4189.9+16.5 Grade 4210.2199.8+10.4 Grade 5218.3207.1+11.2 Grade 6220.4212.3+8.1 Grade 7218.6216.3+2.3 Grade 8225.2219.3+5.9

15. HTS Language Usage RIT National Lang. Usage RIT Difference RIT Grade 2N/A Grade 3204.8191.1+13.7 Grade 4209.1200.9+8.2 Grade 5219.3208.0+11.3 Grade 6221.0212.3+8.7 Grade 7220.6215.8+4.8 Grade 8226.6218.7+7.9

18.  Share data with staff.  Differentiate – enrichment and remediation.  Continue to track growth and examine gaps that may exist.  Align professional development activities as appropriate.

19.  HTS Class of 2014: 6 transfers (2013-2014 grade 8)  HTS Class of 2015: 8 transfers (2013-2014 grade 7)  HTS Class of 2016: 3 transfers (2013-2014 grade 6)  HTS Class of 2017: 6 transfers (2013-2014 grade 5)

20. ELAMath Advanced Proficient2 students (8.7%)11 students (47.8%) Proficient19 students (82.6%)11 students (47.8%) Partially Proficient2 students (8.7%)1 student (4.3%)

21.  District Factor Groupings measure and compare entire communities, not schools.  With inclusion of the transfer students and assuming their scores remained constant, 2014 NJASK Grades 5-8 passing rate (advanced proficient + proficient) in ELA would have increased by 1.0% and the passing rate in math would have increased by 1.3%

22.  “Aid in Lieu” payments ($884 per child/per school year) are made to families that send their children to private schools and do not get bussed to that particular school.  The AIL data does not include students who are bussed to private schools. 2014-2015 school year – 70 students are bussed to private schools  The data does seem to indicate that Harding serves a significantly lower percentage of the total student population than our peer districts. Again, DFGs represent communities, not schools.

23. DistrictTotalPublic SchoolsAid in Lieu Harding (DFG J)532395 (74.2%)137 (25.8%) Millburn (J)5,1624,881 (94.6%)281 (5.4%) Chatham (J)4,3834,206 (96.0%)177 (4.0%) Mt. Lakes (J)1,5981,560 (97.6%)38 (2.4%) Ridgewood (J)~5,8255,725 (98.3%)<100 (1.7%) Mendham T. (J)~1054~1039 (98.6%)15 (1.4%) Mendham B. (J)~866~842 (97.2%)24 (2.8%) Up. Saddle R. (J)~1,901~1,839 (96.7)62 (3.3%) Hanover Twp. (I)~2,100~2,044 (97.3%)56 (2.7%) Madison (I)2,7022,574 (95.3%)128 (4.7%)