dr. alex anemone, superintendent november 17, 2014
Post on 17-Dec-2015
221 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Measures of Academic ProgressFall 2014
Dr. Alex Anemone, SuperintendentNovember 17, 2014
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.
Measures of Academic Progress
Part. Prof.Predicted
Part. Prof.Actual
ProficientPredicted
Proficient Actual
Adv. Prof. Predicted
Adv. Prof. Actual
Math 18.7% 11.2% 50.2% 35.4% 31.0% 53.4%
ELA 18.0% 13.6% 64.4% 68.0% 17.6% 18.4%
2013-2014 Predicted Data vs. Actual
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
Math 0 (0%) 2 (6%) 4 (12%) 6 (18%) 21(64%) 193.1 178.2
Reading 0 (0%) 2 (6%) 5 (15%) 7 (21%) 19 (58%) 190.4 175.9
Grade Two
MAP Low 1-20%ile
LoAvg21-40%ile
Avg41-60%ile
HiAvg61-80%ile
High81-99%ile
HTS Mean RIT
National Mean RIT
Math 0 (0%) 2 (8%) 3 (12%) 11 (42%)
10 (38%) 200.4 192.1
Reading 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (12%) 4 (15%) 19 (73%) 206.4 189.9
Lang. Usage
0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (12%) 7 (27%) 16 (62%) 204.8 191.1
Grade Three
MAP Low 1-20%ile
LoAvg21-40%ile
Avg41-60%ile
HiAvg61-80%ile
High81-99%ile
HTS Mean RIT
National Mean RIT
Math 3 (7%) 4 (10%) 11 (27%)
10 (24%)
13 (32%)
209.6 203.8
Reading 2 (5%) 1 (2%) 9 (22%) 15 (37%)
14 (34%)
210.2 199.8
Lang. Usage
3 (8%) 1 (3%) 6 (15%) 14 (35%)
16 (40%)
209.1 200.9
Grade Four
MAP Low 1-20%ile
LoAvg21-40%ile
Avg41-60%ile
HiAvg61-80%ile
High81-99%ile
HTS Mean RIT
National Mean RIT
Math 1 (3%) 3 (8%) 5 (13%) 10 (26%)
20 (51%)
226.7 212.9
Reading 2 (5%) 1 (3%) 5 (13%) 13 (33%)
18 (46%)
218.3 207.1
Lang. Usage
1 (3%) 2 (5%) 4 (10%) 13 (33%)
19 (49%)
219.3 208.0
Grade Five
MAP Low 1-20%ile
LoAvg21-40%ile
Avg41-60%ile
HiAvg61-80%ile
High81-99%ile
HTS Mean RIT
National Mean RIT
Math 3 (9%) 5 (15%) 3 (9%) 16 (47%)
7 (21%) 224.0 219.6
Reading 1 (3%) 5 (15%) 3 (9%) 11 (32%)
14 (41%)
220.4 212.3
Lang. Usage
2 (6%) 3 (9%) 5 (15%) 7 (21%) 17 (50%)
221.0 212.3
Grade Six
MAP Low 1-20%ile
LoAvg21-40%ile
Avg41-60%ile
HiAvg61-80%ile
High81-99%ile
HTS Mean RIT
National Mean RIT
Math 4 (19%)
3 (14%) 5 (24%) 5 (24%) 4 (19%) 228.4 225.6
Reading 3 (14%)
4 (19%) 4 (19%) 5 (24%) 5 (24%) 218.6 216.3
Lang. Usage
3 (14%)
2 (10%) 4(19%) 5 (24%) 7 (33%) 220.6 215.8
Grade Seven
MAP Low 1-20%ile
LoAvg21-40%ile
Avg41-60%ile
HiAvg61-80%ile
High81-99%ile
HTS Mean RIT
National Mean RIT
Math 6 (19%)
1 (3%) 10 (31%)
5 (16%) 10 (31%) 233.5 230.2
Reading 6 (19%)
0 (0%) 7 (22%) 9 (28%) 10 (31%) 225.2 219.3
Lang. Usage
2 (6%) 4 (13%) 5 (16%) 10 (31%)
11 (34%) 226.6 218.7
Grade Eight
HTS Math RIT National Math RIT
Difference RIT
Grade 2 193.1 178.2 +14.9
Grade 3 200.4 192.1 +8.3
Grade 4 209.6 203.8 +5.8
Grade 5 226.7 212.9 +13.8
Grade 6 224.0 219.6 +4.4
Grade 7 228.4 225.6 +2.8
Grade 8 233.5 230.2 +3.3
HTS Mean Scores - National MeanMath
Gr. 2 Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Gr. 8175
185
195
205
215
225
235
245
HTSNational
Math - HTS Mean - National Mean
HTS Reading RIT
National Reading RIT
Difference RIT
Grade 2 190.4 175.9 +14.5
Grade 3 206.4 189.9 +16.5
Grade 4 210.2 199.8 +10.4
Grade 5 218.3 207.1 +11.2
Grade 6 220.4 212.3 +8.1
Grade 7 218.6 216.3 +2.3
Grade 8 225.2 219.3 +5.9
HTS Mean Scores - National MeanReading
Gr. 2 Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Gr. 8175
185
195
205
215
225
235
245
HTSNational
Reading - HTS Mean - National Mean
HTS Language Usage RIT
National Lang. Usage RIT
Difference RIT
Grade 2 N/A N/A N/A
Grade 3 204.8 191.1 +13.7
Grade 4 209.1 200.9 +8.2
Grade 5 219.3 208.0 +11.3
Grade 6 221.0 212.3 +8.7
Grade 7 220.6 215.8 +4.8
Grade 8 226.6 218.7 +7.9
HTS Mean Scores - National MeanLanguage Usage
Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Gr. 8175
185
195
205
215
225
235
245
HTSNational
Language - HTS Mean - National Mean
Gr. 2 Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Gr. 8175
185
195
205
215
225
235
245
MathReadingLanguage
HTS Mean Scores (RIT)
Share data with staff. Differentiate – enrichment and remediation. Continue to track growth and examine gaps
that may exist. Align professional development activities as
appropriate.
Next Steps
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)
HTS to Private School Transfers
HTS to Private School Transfers
ELA Math
Advanced Proficient
2 students (8.7%) 11 students (47.8%)
Proficient 19 students (82.6%)
11 students (47.8%)
Partially Proficient 2 students (8.7%) 1 student (4.3%)
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%
Analysis
“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.
AIL Analysis
District Total Public Schools Aid in Lieu
Harding (DFG J) 532 395 (74.2%) 137 (25.8%)
Millburn (J) 5,162 4,881 (94.6%) 281 (5.4%)
Chatham (J) 4,383 4,206 (96.0%) 177 (4.0%)
Mt. Lakes (J) 1,598 1,560 (97.6%) 38 (2.4%)
Ridgewood (J) ~5,825 5,725 (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) 2,702 2,574 (95.3%) 128 (4.7%)
Analysis – 2013-2014 AIL
top related