1. Spring 2011 NJASK Testing Report Bedminster Township School Presented by: David Bilenker, Supervisor of Instruction

2. New Jersey Proficiency Levels for Grades 3-8 NJASK  Student scores for NJASK are reported as scaled scores  Scaled scores range from 100-300 with 300 being a “perfect” score Partially Proficient100-199 Partially Proficient100-199 Proficient200-249 Proficient200-249 Advanced Proficient250-300 Advanced Proficient250-300

3. Language Arts Literacy (LAL)  The Language Arts Literacy section of each test measures students’ achievement in reading, writing, and viewing appropriate to their respective grade level  Students read passages selected from published books, newspapers and magazines, as well as everyday text  Students then respond to related multiple- choice, open-ended, and essay questions

4. Mathematics  The mathematics section of each test measures students’ ability to solve problems by applying mathematical concepts appropriate to their respective grade level  Students do this in response to multiple choice, grid response, and open-ended questions

5. Science  The Science assessment measures knowledge and skills in three content clusters for grades 4 and 8 appropriate to their respective grade level Life Science Life Science Physical Science Physical Science Earth Science Earth Science  Scores are reported in scaled scores ranging from 100- 300, with advanced proficient, proficient and partially proficient scores, the same as the LAL and Math assessments

6. NJASK  The NJASK is a single indicator used to gauge a school or district’s performance during a given school year.  Measures students’ mastery of the New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards for their respective grade level(s).  Ultimately, the NJASK will be “phased out” as the NJCCCS will be replaced by the Common Core State Standards.  Utilized by school district’s for placement purposes and to identify instructional strengths and deficiencies

7. New Performance Indicators  According to the Education Transformation Task Force, there will be a shift in measuring a school district’s performance through the use of a multitude of performance indicators: Emphasis on Outcomes Graduation Rates College Readiness Achievement Gains Academic Progress (growth over time)

8. Reasons for Change Initiative  Governor has charged the Task Force of redefining what is considered success/failure for school districts by developing new criteria.  The NJASK does not measure a school district’s growth over time and fails to account for the impact of various sub-groups performance and their impact on the district’s overall scores/rating.

9. Facts  Bedminster Township School’s student population is comprised of the following sub-groups: 18% Special Education 3.3% Limited English Proficient  Historically, the aforementioned subgroups are outperformed by their counterparts on state assessments such as the NJASK.

10. District Factor Groups  The District Factor Groups (DFGs) were first developed in 1975 for the purpose of comparing students’ performance on statewide assessments across demographically similar school districts.  The DFGs represent an approximate measure of a community’s relative socioeconomic status (SES). The classification system provides a useful tool for examining student achievement and comparing similarly-situated school districts in other analyses.

11. DFG  The DFGs are calculated using the following six variables : 1) Percent of adults with no high school diploma 2) Percent of adults with some college education 3) Occupational status 4) Unemployment rate 5) Percent of individuals in poverty 6) Median family income.

12. DFG Comparison LAL – Grade 3 Grade 3 BTS (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education3321.2%60.6%18.2%218.9 Special Education1341.7%58.3%0%204.7 Limited English4100%0% 176.3 Total4929.8%57.4%12.8%213.1 Grade 3 DFG (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education15.5%69.9%14.6%220.2 Special Education46.6%48.9%4.5%200.1 Limited English44%51.3%4.7%199.9 Total21.1%66.1%12.8%216.5

13. DFG Comparison Math – Grade 3 Grade 3 BTS (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education336.1%57.6%36.4%240.8 Special Education138.3%50%41.7%237.8 Limited English44%100%0%179.3 Total4912.5%52.1%35.4%236.1 Grade 3 DFG (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education5.7%43.1%51.1%249.1 Special Education24.9%50.4%24.6%222.4 Limited English25.5%39.2%35.3%227.8 Total9.3%44.3%46.4%244.3

14. DFG Comparison LAL – Grade 4 Grade 4 BTS (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education5334%54.7%11.3%213.1 Special Education1280%20%0%183.3 Limited English2100%0% 183.5 Total6541.3%49.2%9.5%208.4 Grade 4 DFG (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education13.7%70.6%15.7%223 Special Education48.7%47.2%4%196.2 Limited English49.7%46.6%3.7%197.2 Total20%66.4%13.6%218.2

15. DFG Comparison Math – Grade 4 Grade 4 BTS (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education537.5%39.6%52.8%251 Special Education1250%40%10%196.1 Limited English2100%0% 185 Total6514.3%39.7%46%242.3 Grade 4 DFG (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education5.7%43.1%51.1%249.1 Special Education24.9%50.4%24.6%222.4 Limited English25.5%39.2%35.3%227.8 Total9.3%44.3%46.4%244.3

16. DFG Comparison LAL – Grade 5 Grade 5 BTS (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education468.9%80%11.1%222.5 Special Education1753.3%46.7%0%195.7 Limited English10% 0 Total6420%71.7%8.3%215.8 Grade 5 DFG (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education12.6%73.1%14.3%223.9 Special Education55.3%42.4%2.3%194.6 Limited English46.7%48.6%4.7%199.7 Total19.8%67.9%12.3%219

17. DFG Comparison Math – Grade 5 Grade 5 BTS (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education462.2%44.4%53.3%254 Special Education1746.7%26.7% 214.9 Limited English10%100%0%237 Total6413.1%41%45.9%244.1 Grade 5 DFG (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education3.7%33.3%63%256.2 Special Education29.7%44.4%25.9%220.3 Limited English22.1%36.8%41.1%232.9 Total8.1%35.1%56.8%250.1

18. DFG Comparison LAL – Grade 6 Grade 6 BTS (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education567.1%78.6%14.3%229.4 Special Education1258.3%41.7%0%191 Limited English20%100%0%218 Total6916.2%72.1%11.8%222.6 Grade 6 DFG (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education10.7%73.8%15.4%225.3 Special Education55.3%43.1%1.6%195.8 Limited English47.3%51.6%1.1%200.3 Total17.5%69.2%13.4%220.8

19. DFG Comparison Math – Grade 6 Grade 6 BTS (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education560%57.1%42.9%249.5 Special Education1275%16.7%8.3%194.9 Limited English250%0%50%246.5 Total6914.5%49.3%36.2%239.2 Grade 6 DFG (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education5%47.8%47.2%246.2 Special Education39.6%48.5%11.8%207 Limited English26.7%45.4%27.9%224.2 Total10.2%47.9%41.9%240.3

20. DFG Comparison LAL – Grade 7 Grade 7 BTS (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education573.5%57.9%38.6%236.4 Special Education885.7%14.3%0%177.4 Limited English00% 0 Total6512.5%53.1%34.4%229.9 Grade 7 DFG (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education10.7%63.3%26%229.7 Special Education58.3%38.7%3%191.6 Limited English54.9%41.1%4%193.6 Total17.7%59.6%22.7%224.1

21. DFG Comparison Math- Grade 7 Grade 7 BTS (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education5712.3%40.4%47.4%242.8 Special Education842.9%57.1%0%192.9 Limited English00% 0 Total6515.6%42.2% 237.3 Grade 7 DFG (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education10.8%45.3%43.9%241.5 Special Education56.2%34.6%9.2%195 Limited English39.4%33%27.5%215.4 Total17.4%43.7%38.9%234.8

22. DFG Comparison LAL- Grade 8 Grade 8 BTS (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education710%48.6%51.4%246.3 Special Education1144.4%55.6%0%209.2 Limited English00% 0 Total825.1%49.4%45.6%242.1 Grade 8 DFG (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education6.2%59.7%34.1%237 Special Education30.6%64.1%5.3%210 Limited English35.1%62.3%2.6%206.1 Total6.2%59.7%34.1%237

23. DFG Comparison Math- Grade 8 Grade 8 BTS (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education711.4%38%60.6%256.2 Special Education1155.6%33.3%11.1%197.4 Limited English00% 0 Total827.5%37.5%55%249.6 Grade 8 DFG (2011) nPartially Proficient ProficientAdvanced Proficient Mean General Education7.4%40%52.7%248.8 Special Education50.9%36.2%12.9%198.4 Limited English35.9%39.1%25%216 Total13.7%39.5%46.9%241.5

24. Highlights   One hundred percent of our sixth grade general education students were proficient or advanced proficient on the Math section of the NJASK.   One hundred percent of our eighth grade general education students were proficient or advanced proficient on the LAL section of the NJASK.   One hundred percent of our fourth grade special education students were proficient or advanced proficient on the Science section of the NJASK   One hundred percent of our 7 th and 8 th graders passed the end of course Algebra I test.: 7 th grade: 100% advanced proficient 8 th grade: 42% advanced proficient

25. Highlights   Bedminster students are well prepared by the time they graduate from 8th grade. When compared against districts with like students, socio-economic level, per capita income, housing measures and aspirations, the facts reveal that Bedminster outperformed the state averages within our DFG: Language Arts Literacy Grade 8 BTS Mean Score All Students LAL* 242.1 Grade 8 DFG State Mean Score All Students LAL* 237.0 Mathematics Grade 8 BTS Mean Score All Students MT* 249.6** Grade 8 DFG State Mean Score All Students MT* 241.5

26. Highlights   Bedminster students consistently perform well on all sections of the state test each year.   In many areas and grade levels, Bedminster students out-perform students in the same District Factor Group.   In almost all areas and grade levels, Bedminster students out-perform the state mean.

27. Questions ?