Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

HARDING TOWNSHIP SCHOOL Alex Anemone, Ed.D. October 6, 2014 NJ Testing Report Spring 2014.

Published byMilton Bishop Modified over 9 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "HARDING TOWNSHIP SCHOOL Alex Anemone, Ed.D. October 6, 2014 NJ Testing Report Spring 2014."— Presentation transcript:

1 HARDING TOWNSHIP SCHOOL Alex Anemone, Ed.D. October 6, 2014 NJ Testing Report Spring 2014

2 This Report Includes: 2014 NJASK results for Grades 3 - 8 Inclusive of Special Education Disaggregated General Ed. and Special Ed. Testing Highlights Comparisons to DFG J and State ELAGrades 3-8 Math Grades 3-8 Science Grades 4 and 8 Cohort Analysis OLSAT AIP

3 District Factor Group DFG results compare HTS test results to districts of a similar socioeconomic status. Community wealth and education levels are the primary criteria. Harding Township is a “J” district, the wealthiest DFG rating and the most competitive academic cohort. There are approximately 4,500 students per grade in DFG J. There are approximately 100,000 students per grade statewide.

4 Testing Highlights ELA proficient and advanced proficient 86.4% (81.4% in 2013). An increase of 5.0 percentage points or 6.1%. Math proficient and advanced proficient 88.8% (85.3% in 2013). An increase of 3.5 percentage points or 4.1%. Science proficient and advanced proficient 97.1% (95.6% in 2013). An increase of 1.5 percentage points or 1.6%.

5 Testing Highlights Greater % gain in students scoring advanced proficient in ELA and Math as compared to DFG J and State. Greater % decline in students scoring partially proficient in ELA and Math as compared to DFG J and State. % of students scoring advanced proficient greater than DFG J Grade 4 ELA; Grade 4 Math % of students scoring partially proficient less than DFG J Grade 3 Math; Grade 4 ELA; Grade 5 Math; Grade 8 Science Mean scale scores greater than DFG J Grade 4 ELA; Grade 4 Math; Grade 4 Science

6 Testing Highlights Mean scale scores greater than State in all grades and in all subjects. % of students scoring advanced proficient greater than State average in all grades and subjects. % of students scoring partially proficient less than State average in all grades and subjects.

7 Testing Highlights Increased number of “Perfect 300” scores in Math from 14 in 2013 to 31 in 2014; an increase of 121.4%! Increased number of “Perfect 300” scores in Science from 6 in 2013 to 10 in 2014; an increase of 66.7%! 15.0% of all Math exams were “Perfect 300” (6.9% in 2013). 14.5% of all Science exams were “Perfect 300” (8.8% in 2013).

8 Testing Highlights Mean scores were over 250 – Advanced Proficient in: Grade 3 Math:253 Grade 4 Math: 263 Grade 4 Science:265 Grade 5 Math: 257

9 NJASK Grade 3 May 2014 41 Students (1 student = 2.44%) English Language Arts 20142013201220112010 % Advanced Proficient 12.210.30.014.00.0 % Proficient75.674.484.654.562.5 % Partially Proficient12.215.315.431.537.5 Mathematics % Advanced Proficient 60.953.846.256.642.5 % Proficient34.243.638.539.142.5 % Partially Proficient4.92.615.44.315 Mean score for Math was 253 - Advanced Proficient

10 English Language Arts Grade 3

11 Mathematics Grade 3

12 NJASK Grade 4 May 2014 38 Students (1 student = 2.63%) English Language Arts 20142013201220112010 % Advanced Proficient 21.112.50.07.05.1 % Proficient71.162.575.076.761.5 % Partially Proficient7.825.025.016.333.3 Mathematics % Advanced Proficient 71.142.533.334.125.6 % Proficient15.845.050.054.551.3 % Partially Proficient13.112.516.711.423.1 Mean score for Math was 263 - Advanced Proficient

13 English Language Arts Grade 4

14 Mathematics Grade 4

15 NJASK Grade 4 May 2014 38 Students (1 Student = 2.63%) Science 20142013201220112010 % Advanced Proficient 73.7 72.562.561.453.8 % Proficient 23.727.533.334.146.2 % Partially Proficient 2.604.24.50 Mean score for Science was 265 – Advanced Proficient

16 Science Grade 4

17 NJASK Grade 5 May 2014 37 Students (1 Student = 2.70%) English Language Arts 20142013201220112010 % Advanced Proficient 21.602.2021.2 % Proficient 62.276.066.769.251.5 % Partially Proficient 16.224.031.130.827.3 Mathematics % Advanced Proficient 67.644.033.333.336.4 % Proficient 29.744.053.453.851.5 % Partially Proficient 2.712.013.312.812.1 Mean score for Math was 257 – Advanced Proficient

18 English Language Arts Grade 5

19 Mathematics Grade 5

20 NJASK Grade 6 May 2014 25 Students (1 Student = 4.0%) English Language Arts 20142013201220112010 % Advanced Proficient 12.02.513.212.112.5 % Proficient 76.082.173.772.777.1 % Partially Proficient 12.015.413.215.210.4 Mathematics % Advanced Proficient 40.035.934.247.133.3 % Proficient 44.043.660.550.058.3 % Partially Proficient 16.020.55.32.98.3

21 English Language Arts Grade 6

22 Mathematics Grade 6

23 NJASK Grade 7 May 2014 34 Students (1 Student = 2.94%) English Language Arts 20142013201220112010 % Advanced Proficient 26.58.914.311.433.3 % Proficient 52.967.667.977.362.5 % Partially Proficient 20.623.517.911.44.2 Mathematics % Advanced Proficient 23.544.121.436.433.3 % Proficient 55.938.264.347.754.2 % Partially Proficient 20.617.614.315.912.5

24 English Language Arts Grade 7

25 Mathematics Grade 7

26 NJASK Grade 8 May 2014 31 Students (1 Student = 3.23%) English Language Arts 20142013201220112010 % Advanced Proficient 16.114.320.037.541.9 % Proficient 70.975.077.862.553.5 % Partially Proficient 12.910.72.204.7 Mathematics % Advanced Proficient 48.453.644.458.367.4 % Proficient 38.721.448.941.727.9 % Partially Proficient 12.925.06.704.7

27 English Language Arts Grade 8

28 Mathematics Grade 8

29 NJASK Grade 8 May 2014 31 Students (1 Student = 3.23%) Science 20142013201220112010 % Advanced Proficient38.750.044.737.555.8 % Proficient 58.139.346.862.539.5 % Partially Proficient 3.210.78.504.7

30 Science Grade 8

31 Disaggregated Data General Education Students: grades 3-8 ELAAdv. Prof.21.5% +12.0% ELAProf.68.9% ELAPart. Prof.9.6%-3.4% Special Education Students: grades 3-8 ELAAdv. Prof.0.0% ELAProf.62.1% ELAPart. Prof.37.9%-7.8%

32 Disaggregated Data General Education Students: grades 3-8 MathAdv. Prof.58.2%+6.7% MathProf.33.9% MathPart. Prof.7.9% Special Education Students: grades 3-8 MathAdv. Prof.24.1%+7.0% MathProf.44.8% MathPart. Prof.31.0%-17.6% Special Education students improving scale score 2013-2014 ELA: 80% Math: 65%

33 English Language Arts 2014 Advanced Proficient:18.4%(+10.1%) Proficient:68.0% Partially Proficient:13.6%(-5.0%) 2013 Advanced Proficient: 8.3% Proficient:73.0% Partially Proficient:18.6%

34 Math 2014 Advanced Proficient:53.4% (+7.8%) Proficient:35.4% Partially Proficient:11.2% (-3.5%) 2013 Advanced Proficient:45.6% Proficient:39.7% Partially Proficient:14.7%

35 Science 2014 Advanced Proficient:58.0% Proficient:39.1% Partially Proficient: 2.9%(-1.5%) 2013 Advanced Proficient:63.2% Proficient:32.4% Partially Proficient: 4.4%

36 HTS- DFG J - State ELA Adv. Prof. 2013-2014 ELA Part. Prof. 2013- 2014 Math Adv. Prof. 2013- 2014 Math Part. Prof. 2013- 2014 HTS+10.1%-5.0%+7.8%-3.5% DFG J~ +7.9%~-1.8%~+6.5%~-0.9% State~+2.6%~+1.7%~+3.0%~-0.1%

37 Cohort Analysis Grade 3 (2013) to Grade 4 (2014) ELA Adv. Prof. +10.8% Math Adv. Prof.+17.3% ELA Part. Prof. -7.5% Grade 4 (2013) to Grade 5 (2014) ELA Adv. Prof.+9.1% Math Adv. Prof.+25.1% ELA Part. Prof.-8.8% Math Part. Prof.-9.8%

38 Cohort Analysis (cont’d) Grade 5 (2013) to Grade 6 (2014) ELA Adv. Prof.+12.0% ELA Part. Prof.-12.0% Grade 6 (2013) to Grade 7 (2014) ELA Adv. Prof.+24.0% Grade 7 (2013) to Grade 8 (2014) ELA Adv. Prof.+7.2% Math Adv. Prof.+4.3% ELA Part. Prof.-10.6%

39 Otis-Lennon School Ability Test May 2014 - grade three: N = 41 students (100%) Mean Score:109 Standard Deviation:15.5 Range:72-150 90 th Percentile:127 75 th Percentile:117 50 th Percentile:111 25 th Percentile:99 10 th Percentile:88

40 Otis-Lennon School Ability Test OLSATNJASK ELANJASK Math 150278300 127259282 117238252 111225300 99218226 88200214 72201185

41 Academic Improvement Program (AIP) 63 students recommended in grades 1-8. 46 entered into AIP classes 17 received outside tutoring ELA 2013 ELA 2014 ChangeMath 2013 Math 2014 Change AIP (n=46) 191.5208.0+8.6%188.4192.5+2.2% Non AIP (n=17) 193.3214.6+11.0%191.5209.3+9.3%

42 Academic Improvement Program (AIP) 46 AIP students ELA – 7 students moved from partially proficient to proficient Math – 5 students moved from partially proficient to proficient 17 non-AIP students ELA – 4 students moved from partially proficient to proficient; 1 student moved from proficient to advanced proficient Math – 2 students moved from partially proficient to proficient

43 2014 NJASK ELA +5.0 percentage points or +6.1% Math +3.5 percentage points or +4.1% Science +1.5 percentage points or +1.6% Congratulations to all HTS students and staff members for their hard work and dedication.

Download ppt "HARDING TOWNSHIP SCHOOL Alex Anemone, Ed.D. October 6, 2014 NJ Testing Report Spring 2014."

Similar presentations

BETHLEHEM TOWNSHIP NJASK 3-8 RESULTS 2010-2011. How are we doing compared to the standard? % Partially Proficient % Proficient % Advanced Proficient.

BETHLEHEM TOWNSHIP NJASK 3-8 RESULTS How are we doing compared to the standard? % Partially Proficient % Proficient % Advanced Proficient.
Hackettstown Public Schools 2014 October Score Report NJASK End of Course Biology HSPA.

Hackettstown Public Schools 2014 October Score Report NJASK End of Course Biology HSPA.
Review of NCLB Testing For Fair Lawn Board of Education and Public---October 2013 N.J.A.C. 6A:8-4.3(a) Accountability “Chief school administrators shall.

Review of NCLB Testing For Fair Lawn Board of Education and Public---October 2013 N.J.A.C. 6A:8-4.3(a) Accountability “Chief school administrators shall.
AVID Excel Goal To interrupt students’ path to long-term ELL status, accelerate their language acquisition, and put them on the path to AVID and college.

AVID Excel Goal To interrupt students’ path to long-term ELL status, accelerate their language acquisition, and put them on the path to AVID and college.
Washington Township 2007 Test Scores Washington Township Administrative Team October 23, 2007.

Washington Township 2007 Test Scores Washington Township Administrative Team October 23, 2007.
Review of NCLB Testing For Fair Lawn Board of Education and Public---October 2012 N.J.A.C. 6A:8-4.3(a) Accountability “Chief school administrators shall.

Review of NCLB Testing For Fair Lawn Board of Education and Public---October 2012 N.J.A.C. 6A:8-4.3(a) Accountability “Chief school administrators shall.
Orange Data Outcomes NJASK and HSPA October 2013 1.

Orange Data Outcomes NJASK and HSPA October
PRESENTED BY THE DEMAREST ADMINISTRATIVE TEAM 2013-2014 Annual State of the Schools Assessment Report.

PRESENTED BY THE DEMAREST ADMINISTRATIVE TEAM Annual State of the Schools Assessment Report.
Manasquan Elementary School State Proficiency Assessments Spring 2010 results Presented by: Richard Kirk Assistant Principal Manasquan Elementary School.

Manasquan Elementary School State Proficiency Assessments Spring 2010 results Presented by: Richard Kirk Assistant Principal Manasquan Elementary School.
Dr. Alex Anemone, Superintendent November 17, 2014.

Dr. Alex Anemone, Superintendent November 17, 2014.
WHAT DO SMARTER QUESTIONS LOOK LIKE? COMPUTER ADAPTIVE TEST: ENGLISH.

WHAT DO SMARTER QUESTIONS LOOK LIKE? COMPUTER ADAPTIVE TEST: ENGLISH.
1 2011 Grade 3-8 English Language Arts and Mathematics Results August 8, 2011.

Grade 3-8 English Language Arts and Mathematics Results August 8, 2011.
DISTRICT MCAS RESULTS November 19, 2007. Charts by Grade vs. The State Charts by Grade Comparing 2001 through 2007 Longitudinal Comparisons CONTENTS.

DISTRICT MCAS RESULTS November 19, Charts by Grade vs. The State Charts by Grade Comparing 2001 through 2007 Longitudinal Comparisons CONTENTS.
MCAS OVERVIEW.

MCAS OVERVIEW.
HULL HIGH SCHOOL 10 th Grade MCAS Results and Comparisons Spring of 2008 Testing.

HULL HIGH SCHOOL 10 th Grade MCAS Results and Comparisons Spring of 2008 Testing.
District Assessment & Accountability Data Board of Education Report September 6, 2011 Marsha A. Brown, Director III – Student Services State Testing and.

District Assessment & Accountability Data Board of Education Report September 6, 2011 Marsha A. Brown, Director III – Student Services State Testing and.
Average National Arabic Scale Scores for Grade 1 By Gender MalesFemales 350 450 650 01 Grade Level Scale Score 550.

Average National Arabic Scale Scores for Grade 1 By Gender MalesFemales Grade Level Scale Score 550.
1 State Testing March 2006 Grades 3-8 (NJASK and GEPA)

1 State Testing March 2006 Grades 3-8 (NJASK and GEPA)
1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.

1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.
Academic Achievement Highlights San Francisco Unified School District August 2010.

Academic Achievement Highlights San Francisco Unified School District August 2010.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google