1. MOUNT OLIVE TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS 2015 End of Year Academic Achievement Report

2. 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 2014. As many as 20% of high school students refused, 15% of Middle schoolers, and around 6-8% of elementary school students. VISIONFORPUBLICEDUCATIONINNEWJERSEY

3.  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

4. “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?

5. RAISING STANDARDS 2009 : New Jersey adopted higher course taking requirements for all students. 2010 : 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 - 2008) New Jersey has adopted standards that “are widely recognized as appropriate standards for college and career readiness.” - College and Career Ready Taskforce (CCRT- 2012)

6. 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 - 2008)

7.  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

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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. 2015 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 https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ ADP: American Diploma Project http://www.achieve.org/adp-networkhttp://www.achieve.org/adp-network

11. 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 6 3979%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

12. 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 6 6692%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.

13. 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 3287372060969 44% Grade 43282725511566 51% Grade 5301191764973 51%51% Grade 63638173236743 49% Grade 732951019392766 52% Grade 831591425411152 52% Grade 928427222819322 40% Grade 1025846231613215 37% Grade 1122628192822426* (54) 41% (64%) MOUNT OLIVE TOWNSHIP SCHOOL’S 2015 PARCC GRADE-LEVEL OUTCOMES ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY

14. 4's, 5's State1's, 2's GradeSubjectSchoolNJPARCC%Compare% 3ELATR443887436 SS443875316 MV4438631911 CMS4438601614 4ELASS514281304 TR514280298 MV514265149 CMS51425013 5ELASS514079287 TR5140732212 CMS514072219 MV5140651415 Mount Olive Comparison to State/ National ELA Results By Percentage

15. 4's, 5's State1's, 2's 6ELAMOMS493943-625 7ELAMOMS5242661415 8ELAMOMS514252123 9ELAMOHS394022-1749 10ELAMOHS363715-2169 11ELAMOHS413926-1547 6463 54-10 Mount Olive Comparison to State/ National ELA Results By Percentage

16. 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 329011028491362 45% Grade 43292163543548 40%40% Grade 5303383745752 41% Grade 63649203137441 41% Grade 733121526471057 37% Grade 8*99323528404 24% Algebra I3519153142244 36% Geometry2408333524024* (59) 22% (53%) Algebra II21411313423124* (57) 24% (44%) Mount Olive 2015 PARCC GRADE-LEVEL OUTCOMES MATHEMATICS

17. 4's, 5's State1's, 2's GradeSubjectSchoolNJPARCC%Compare% 3MathTR453879346 SS453869242 MV4538561114 CMS453853816 4MathMV4032602011 TR4032541412 SS4032531310 CMS403234-628 5MathTR413262219 SS413253127 CMS413250915 MV413245412 Mount Olive Comparison to State/ National Math Results By Percentage

18. 4's, 5's State1's, 2's 6MathMOMS413241028 7MathMOMS3729572017 8MathMOMS24274-2017 8Algebra 1MOMS363166307 9Algebra 1MOHS36317-2954 10GeometryMOHS232724141 5358 59641 11Algebra 2MOHS242124042 4442 581442 Mount Olive Comparison to State/ National Math Results By Percentage

19. 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 31024102654660 44% Grade 41183103744650 51% Grade 5100271965772 51% 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 31022143148553 45% Grade 41194243731334 40%40% Grade 5100394342345 41%

20. 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 364562761263 44% Grade 4822726501565 51% Grade 5602132058765 51% 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 36501431451156 45% Grade 4821102955560 40% Grade 56051035331750 41%

21. 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 3512618571875 44% Grade 4632216651681 51% Grade 5662515651479 51% 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 3520229521769 45% Grade 4630103851253 40% Grade 566254147653 41% Sandshore Results

22. 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 370067711687 44% Grade 4653512512980 51% Grade 5750121565872 51% 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 3710618512576 45% Grade 4650123445954 40% Grade 577182956662 41% Tinc Road Results

23. 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 63638173236743 49% Grade 732951019392766 52% Grade 831591425411152 52% 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 63649203137441 41% Grade 733121526471057 37% Grade 8*99323528404 24% Algebra 1225162762466 36%

24. 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 928427222819322 40% Grade 1025846231613215 37% Grade 1122628192822426* (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 I126243039707 36% Geometry2408333524024* (59) 22% (53%) Algebra II21411313423124* (57) 24% (44%)

25. 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

26. VIDEO: UNDERSTANDING THE SCORE REPORT http://understandthescore.org/

27. PARENT GUIDE TO THE SCORE REPORTS http://www.parcconline.org/resources/educator-resources

28. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FOR PARENTS http://understandthescore.org/

29. 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.

30. 2015 NJASK Science by Building

31. District NJASK Science Since 2012

32. Chester M. Stephens NJASK Science Since 2012

33. Mountain View NJASK Science Since 2012

34. Sandshore NJASK Science Since 2012

35. Tinc Road NJASK Science Since 2012

36. MOMS NJASK Science Since 2012

37. District NJASK Science Total Proficient v. Partially Proficient

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

39. Mountain View NJASK Science Total Proficient v. Partially Proficient

40. Sandshore NJASK Science Total Proficient v. Partially Proficient

41. Tinc Road NJASK Science Total Proficient v. Partially Proficient

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

43. Internal Math Results

44. 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 2014-15 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.

45. 2014 – 2015 End of Year Math-in-Focus Benchmark Assessment Grade 1

46. 2014 – 2015 End of Year Math-in-Focus Benchmark Assessment Grade 2

47. 2014 – 2015 End of Year Math-in-Focus Benchmark Assessment Grade 3

48. 2014 – 2015 End of Year Math-in-Focus Benchmark Assessment Grade 4

49. 2014 – 2015 End of Year Math-in-Focus Benchmark Assessment Grade 5

53. Internal READING RESULTS

54. 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 2014-15 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.

55. 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

56. 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

57. 2014-15 Lexile Growth by Grade Grade 2Grade 3

58. 2014-15 Lexile Growth by Grade Grade 4Grade 5

59. District 2 nd Grade Above Grade v. Below Grade Growth

60. District 3 rd Grade Above Grade v. Below Grade Growth

61. District 4 th Grade Above Grade v. Below Grade Growth

62. District 5 th Grade Above Grade v. Below Grade Growth

63. Mount Olive MS Grades 6-8 Proficiency Level Growth

64. 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

65. 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

66. General Observations of SRI Data Results for CMS 2014-2015 Suggested annual average SRI growth ranges from 75-100 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

67. Average SRI Growth in 2nd Grade Reading Intervention Students is 323.3 Lexile Points * Students # 13,14, 16, 18, 25 scored a BR 0 on the Fall SRI.

68. 6/23/201568

69. Average SRI Growth in 3rd Grade BSI Intervention Students is 206.7 Lexile Points 6/23/201569

70. 6/23/201570

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

72. 6/23/201572

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

74. 6/23/201574

75. 6/23/201575

76. General Observations of SRI Data Results for Mt. View 2014-2015 Suggested annual average SRI growth ranges from 75-100 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

77. Average SRI Growth in 2nd Grade Reading Intervention Students is 273.9 Lexile Points 6/23/201577

78. 6/23/201578

79. Average SRI Growth in 3rd Grade BSI Intervention Students is 125.9 Lexile Points 6/23/201579

80. 6/23/201580

81. Average SRI Growth in 4 th Grade BSI Intervention Students is 113.4 Lexile Points 6/23/201581

82. 6/23/201582

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

84. 6/23/201584

85. 6/23/201585

86. General Observations of SRI Data Results for Sandshore 2014-2015 Suggested annual average SRI growth ranges from 75-100 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

87. Average SRI Growth in 2nd Grade Reading Intervention Students is 313.4 Lexile Points 6/23/201587

88. 6/23/201588

89. Average SRI Growth in 3rd Grade BSI Intervention Students is 188.4 Lexile Points 6/23/201589

90. 6/23/201590

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

92. 6/23/201592

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

94. 6/23/201594

95. 6/23/201595

96. General Observations of SRI Data Results for Tinc Road 2014-2015 Suggested annual average SRI growth ranges from 75-100 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

97. Average SRI Growth in 2 nd Grade Reading Intervention Students is 319.8 Lexile Points 6/23/201597

98. 6/23/201598

99. Average SRI Growth in 3 rd Grade BSI Intervention Students is 144.9 Lexile Points 6/23/201599

100. 6/23/2015100

101. Average SRI Growth in 4 th Grade BSI Intervention Students is 103.8 Lexile Points 6/23/2015101

102. 6/23/2015102

103. Average SRI Growth in 5 th Grade BSI Intervention Students is 87.6 Lexile Points 6/23/2015103

104. 6/23/2015104

105. 6/23/2015105

106. Students in intervention programs in Gr. 2-5 demonstrated higher average SRI growth than students in regular education classrooms. Average growth of intervention students = 165.2 Lexile points Average growth of regular education students = 131.3 Lexile points 6/23/2015106

107. Reading Interventions K Excel

108. 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

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

110. Students in intervention programs in Gr. 2-5 demonstrated higher average SRI growth than students in regular education classrooms. Average growth of intervention students = 165.2 Lexile points Average growth of regular education students = 131.3 Lexile points 6/23/2015110

111. Mount Olive High School

112. 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

113. Year# of Tests 54321Avg.% 3,4,5 2004852021201953.3872% 20051162832301973.3178% 200615016345038123.0367% 200715432433334123.2771% 200818743625517103.5986% 20091843060642193.4484% 201029746888945293.2675% 2011312721057440213.5480% 201228288956028113.7886% 201330685929523113.7189% 2014356991249031123.7788% 2015295698110158153.5485% Mount Olive High School Advanced Placement Comparison

114. SAT Comparisons

115. 2005200620072008200920102011201220132014 11th Graders266252276223224198180187266264 10th Graders186176175205192182178146162190

116. 2005200620072008200920102011201220132014 PSAT266252276223224198180187266264 Enrollment355327339362369382359 358368 %75%77%81%62%61%52%50%52%74%72% 77% 52% 50%

117. 2005200620072008200920102011201220132014 PSAT186176175205192182178146162190 Enrollmen t335346352325386389366351381367 %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

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

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

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

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

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

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

124. Mount Olive High School Final Exam Grade Distribution by Grade Level

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

126. Mount Olive High School End of Year English Grade Distribution

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

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

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

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

131. Mount Olive High School End of Year Math Grade Distribution

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

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

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

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

136. Mount Olive High School End of Year Science Grade Distribution

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

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

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

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

141. Mount Olive High School End of Year Social Studies Grade Distribution

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

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

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

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

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

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

148. Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – English

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

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

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

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

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

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

155. Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – Mathematics

156. Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – Algebra

157. Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – Geometry

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

159. Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – Calculus

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

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

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

163. Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – Science

164. Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – Biology

165. Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – Chemistry

166. Mount Olive High School End of Year Average Comparison – Physics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

175. Bonus Slides

176. Mount Olive High School 2014-15 Marking Period Grade Distribution – All Major Subjects

177. Mount Olive High School 2014-15 Marking Period Grade Distribution – English

178. Mount Olive High School 2014-15 Marking Period Grade Distribution – Mathematics

179. Mount Olive High School 2014-15 Marking Period Grade Distribution – Science

180. Mount Olive High School 2014-15 Marking Period Grade Distribution – Social Studies

181. Mount Olive High School 2014-15 Marking Period Grade Distribution – Special Education

182. Mount Olive Middle School

183. Mount Olive Middle School 2014-15 4 th MP Grade Distribution All Students

184. Mount Olive Middle School 2014-15 4 th MP Grade Distribution All 6 th Grade Students

185. Mount Olive Middle School 2014-15 4 th MP Grade Distribution All 7 th Grade Students

186. Mount Olive Middle School 2014-15 4 th MP Grade Distribution All 8 th Grade Students

187. Mount Olive Middle School 2014-15 4 th MP Grade Distribution All ELA

188. Mount Olive Middle School 2014-15 4 th MP Grade Distribution 6 th Grade ELA

189. Mount Olive Middle School 2014-15 4 th MP Grade Distribution 7 th Grade ELA

190. Mount Olive Middle School 2014-15 4 th MP Grade Distribution 8 th Grade ELA

191. Mount Olive Middle School 2014-15 4 th MP Grade Distribution All Mathematics

192. Mount Olive Middle School 2014-15 4 th MP Grade Distribution 6 th Grade Mathematics

193. Mount Olive Middle School 2014-15 4 th MP Grade Distribution 7 th Grade Mathematics

194. Mount Olive Middle School 2014-15 4 th MP Grade Distribution 8 th Grade Mathematics

195. Mount Olive Middle School 2014-15 4 th MP Grade Distribution All Science

196. Mount Olive Middle School 2014-15 4 th MP Grade Distribution 6 th Grade Science

197. Mount Olive Middle School 2014-15 4 th MP Grade Distribution 7 th Grade Science

198. Mount Olive Middle School 2014-15 4 th MP Grade Distribution 8 th Grade Science

199. Mount Olive Middle School 2014-15 4 th MP Grade Distribution Social Studies

200. Mount Olive Middle School 2014-15 4 th MP Grade Distribution 6 th Grade Social Studies

201. Mount Olive Middle School 2014-15 4 th MP Grade Distribution 7 th Grade Social Studies

202. Mount Olive Middle School 2014-15 4 th MP Grade Distribution 8 th Grade Social Studies

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

204. 4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 6 th Grade

205. 4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 6 th Grade Language Arts

206. 4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 6 th Grade Mathematics

207. 4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 6 th Grade Science

208. 4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 6 th Grade Social Studies

209. 4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 7 th Grade

210. 4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 7 th Grade Language Arts

211. 4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 7 th Grade Mathematics

212. 4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 7 th Grade Science

213. 4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 7 th Grade Social Studies

214. 4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 8 th Grade

215. 4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 8 th Grade Language Arts

216. 4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 8 th Grade Mathematics

217. 4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 8 th Grade Science

218. 4 th Quarter v. 4 th Quarterly Exam Comparison – 8 th Grade Social Studies

219. Bonus Slides

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

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

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

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

224. Mount Olive Middle School 4 Quarter Grade Distribution – Language Arts

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

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

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

228. Mount Olive Middle School 4 Quarter Grade Distribution – Mathematics

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

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

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

232. Mount Olive Middle School 4 Quarter Grade Distribution – Science

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

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

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

236. Mount Olive Middle School 4 Quarter Grade Distribution – Social Studies

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

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

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

240. 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