State Testing March 2006
41
1 State Testing March 2006 Grades 3-8 (NJASK and GEPA)
description
State Testing March 2006. Grades 3-8 (NJASK and GEPA). District Factor Grouping. DFG results compare our children’s test results to those in districts of similar socioeconomic status. Community wealth and educational levels are primary criteria. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of State Testing March 2006
1
State Testing March 2006
Grades 3-8(NJASK and GEPA)
2
District Factor Grouping
DFG results compare our children’s test results to those in districts of similar socioeconomic status. Community wealth and educational levels are primary criteria. Mendham Borough is a “J” district, the highest
DFG rating, so our children’s work is compared to similar districts, the most competitive level of comparison.
A few other J districts are Harding, Mendham Twnshp, Millburn, Mt. Lakes, and Tewksbury.
3
Nature of Comparisons
Comparing grade 3 and 4 results from the same year means comparing two different cohorts’ results.
Comparing grade 3 of last year to grade 4 of this year means we are comparing the same students’ results, but on different tests.
4
NJASK Grade 3 All 83 Students March 2006
Language Arts Literacy 2006 2005 2004 % Advanced Proficient 1.2 1.5 1.3 % Proficient 90.4 94.1 93.6 % Partially Proficient 8.4 4.4 5.1
Mathematics % Advanced Proficient 38.6 57.4 43.6 % Proficient 57.8 39.7 52.6 % Partially Proficient 3.6 2.9 3.8
5
Comparisons Grade 3, 2006Language Arts Literacy all 83 students
Total Students Hilltop StateAdvanced Proficient 1.2 3.4Proficient 90.4 79.0Partially Proficient 8.4 17.5
Hilltop J Districts
Advanced Proficient 1.2 8.0Proficient 90.4 87.5Partially Proficient 8.4 4.5
6
LAL Total Proficiency Comparisons Grade 3
0102030405060708090
100
HilltopStateDFGJ
7
NJASK Grade 3 All 83 Students March 2006
Language Arts Literacy 2006 2005 2004 % Advanced Proficient 1.2 1.5 1.3 % Proficient 90.4 94.1 93.6 % Partially Proficient 8.4 4.4 5.1
Mathematics % Advanced Proficient 38.6 57.4 43.6 % Proficient 57.8 39.7 52.6 % Partially Proficient 3.6 2.9 3.8
8
Comparisons Grade 3, 2006Mathematics all 83 students
Total Students
Hilltop% State%
Adv Proficient 38.6 31.1
Proficient 57.8 55.7
Partially Proficient
3.6 13.1
Hilltop% J Districts%
Adv Proficient 38.6 50.6
Proficient 57.8 45.8
Partially Proficient
3.6 3.5
9
Mathematics Total Proficiency Comparisons Grade 3
0102030405060708090
100
HilltopStateDFGJ
10
NJASK Grade 4All 69 Students 2006 Language Arts Literacy 2006 2005 2004
Advanced Proficient 7.2 4.1 10.1 Proficient 85.5 89.2 83.5 Partially Proficient 7.2 6.8 6.3
Mathematics Advanced Proficient 73.9 54.1 31.6 Proficient 21.7 43.2 58.2
Partially Proficient 4.3 2.7 10.1
11
Comparisons Grade 4, 2006Language Arts Literacy all 69 students
Total Students Hilltop StateAdvanced Proficient 7.2 3.8Proficient 85.5 76.2Partially Proficient 7.2 20.0
Hilltop J DistrictAdvanced Proficient 7.2 9.6Proficient 85.5 84.8Partially Proficient 7.2 5.5
12
LAL Total Proficiency Comparison Grade 4
0102030405060708090
100
HilltopStateDFGJ
13
NJASK Grade 4All 69 Students 2006 Language Arts Literacy 2006 2005 2004
Advanced Proficient 7.2 4.1 10.1 Proficient 85.5 89.2 83.5 Partially Proficient 7.2 6.8 6.3
Mathematics Advanced Proficient 73.9 54.1 31.6 Proficient 21.7 43.2 58.2
Partially Proficient 4.3 2.7 10.1
14
Comparisons Grade 4, 2006Mathematics all 69 students
Total Students Hilltop StateAdvanced Proficient 73.9 41.1Proficient 21.7 41.2Partially Proficient 4.3 17.6
Hilltop J District
Advanced Proficient 73.9 63.0Proficient 21.7 32.0Partially Proficient 4.3 5.0
15
Mathematics Total Proficiency Comparison Grade 4
0102030405060708090
100
HilltopStateDFGJ
16
NJASK 5 74 students
Language Arts Literacy Mt V State Advanced Proficient 16.2% 9.3% Proficient 78.4% 76.6% Partially Proficient 5.4% 14.1%
Mathematics Advanced Proficient 41.9%
27.5% Proficient 52.7% 54.2% Partially Proficient 5.4% 18.2%
17
NJASK 6 82 students
Language Arts Literacy Mt View State Advanced Proficient 11.1% 9.2% Proficient 76.5% 65.8% Partially Proficient 12.3% 25.0%
Mathematics Advanced Proficient 32.1% 17.3% Proficient 46.9% 53.5% Partially Proficient 21.0% 29.3%
18
NJASK 7 80 students
Language Arts Literacy Mt View State Advanced Proficient 22.5% 9.9% Proficient 75.0% 70.4% Partially Proficient 2.5% 19.8%
Mathematics Advanced Proficient 32.5% 14.4% Proficient 55% 49.9% Partially Proficient 12.5% 35.7%
19
GEPA Grade 82006 58 students
Language Arts Literacy 2006 2005 2004 % Advanced Proficient 20.7 29.3 10.1 % Proficient 77.6 68.3 83.5 Partially Proficient 1.7 2.4 6.3
Mathematics % Advanced Proficient 32.8 43.4 40.3 % Proficient 60.3 45.8 49.3 % Partially Proficient 6.9 10.8 10.4
20
Comparisons Grade 8, 2006Language Arts Literacy (%)
Total Students MV StateAdvanced Proficient 20.7
8.5Proficient 77.6 65.7Partially Proficient 1.7 25.7
21
Language Arts Total Proficiency Comparisons Grade 8
0
20
40
60
80
100
Mountain ViewState
22
GEPA Grade 82006 58 students
Language Arts Literacy 2006 2005 2004 % Advanced Proficient 20.7 29.3 10.1 % Proficient 77.6 68.3 83.5 Partially Proficient 1.7 2.4 6.3
Mathematics % Advanced Proficient 32.8 43.4 40.3 % Proficient 60.3 45.8 49.3 % Partially Proficient 6.9 10.8 10.4
23
Comparisons Grade 8, 2006 Mathematics (%)
Total Students MV StateAdvanced Proficient 32.8
20.9Proficient 60.3 43.6Partially Proficient 6.9 35.5
24
Mathematics Total Proficiency Comparisons Grade 8
0
20
40
60
80
100
Mountain ViewState
25
Cluster Scores Grade 3Language Arts Literacy 2006
TOTAL STUDENTS (in % possible points)
Hilltop State J Distr
WRITING 45 45 50about pictures
48 46 51
about poems 41 43 47
READING 68 60 70Working with text
73 52 66
Analyzing text
61 53 63
TOTAL LAL 56 53 58
26
Cluster Scores Grade 4Language Arts Literacy 2006
TOTAL STUDENTS (in % possible points)
Hilltop State J District
WRITING 52 49 55about pictures
57 52 58
about poems 47 46 51
READING 59 53 63Working with text
84 72 84
Analyzing text
52 49 57
TOTAL LAL
56 52 59
27
Cluster Scores Grade 8 Language Arts Literacy 2006
Mountain View
State J Districts
Writing 59 55 62
Reading 76 63 72
Interpreting Text
75 63 72
Analyzing Text
77 63 72
28
Cluster Scores Grade 3Mathematics 06 % of possible
Hilltop State J DistrictsNo. operations
71 64 74
Geometry & Measurement
83 80 85
Patterns &Algebra
69 59 85
Data analysis, Discrete Math
68 64 75
Problem Solving
69 57 69
TOTAL 73 67 77
29
Cluster Scores Grade 4Mathematics 06 % of possible
Hilltop State J DistrictsNo. operations
77 65 76
Geometry & Measurement
80 65 75
Patterns & Algebra
77 61 74
Data analysis, Discrete Math
74 60 72
Problem Solving
74 59 71
TOTAL 77 63 74
30
Cluster Scores Grade 8Mathematics % of possible
MV State J Districts
Number and Numerical Operations
73 58 73
Geometry and Measurement 62 53 69
Patterns and Algebra 72 61 76
Data Analysis and Discrete Mathematics
82 65 79
Knowledge 72 59 75
Problem Solving 73 58 74
31
Special Education
The test results for students whose learning is supported by special education are included in these data.
Their results, when compared with special education students in other J districts, are generally above average.
32
So let’s summarize…
Our children’s overall proficiency is very strong.
33
And we see that…
Our largest interest is to address is Language Arts Literacy. The issues vary from grade to grade.
Our best performance is in areas of mathematics—especially in problem solving, in using mathematics.
34
Curriculum PlanningLanguage Arts Literacy
Implement instructional practices supported by the latest research
Provide on-going training utilizing the practices from Columbia University (Teachers College Writing Project)
Develop quarterly prompt, timed writing assessments that are aligned with writing units
Collect baseline, mid-year, and final writing assessments to check progress
Monitor writing units to ensure specific units are taught prior to the state test
35
Curriculum Planning
Mathematics K-4
Develop stronger pre-assessments to help identify strengths and weaknesses of students
Plan time to articulate about student work within and across grade levels
36
Curriculum Planning
Mathematics 5-8Recent changes to the math program
Rewrote math curriculum at grades 5-8 over the summer of 2006
Developed a basic skills assessment for each grade level to ensure mastery of fundamental skills
Developed pre-assessments and administered within the first week of school to help identify student readiness
37
Curriculum Planning
Mathematics 5-8Work to be done this year
Implement instructional practices that are supported by the latest research
Monitor newly implemented math sequence to ensure students receive the necessary support at each grade level
Provide time for teachers to analyze student work and share instructional practices
Develop unit tests that follow a similar format and weighting system as the state tests
Continue to train teachers in differentiated instruction
38
Finally, thank you for…
Being here because you care to know and to help, and
Sharing the opportunity to contribute to the growth of these excellent children and young people with us.
39
40
41
So let’s summarize…
Grade 3: 91.6% in LA: 96.4% in Math Grade 4: 92.7% in LA; 95.6% in Math Grade 5: 94.6% in LA; 94.6% in Math Grade 6: 87.6% in LA; 79.0% in Math Grade 7: 97.5% in LA; 87.5% in Math Grade 8: 98.3% in LA; 93.1% in Math
![Usability Test Report for [Product Name] · The scenario-based testing took place from February 22-March 14, 2006 and focus groups were held during the week of March 20, 2006. Who](https://static.fdocuments.us/doc/165x107/5f03269d7e708231d407ca47/usability-test-report-for-product-name-the-scenario-based-testing-took-place-from.jpg)
