1. Measuring College and Career Readiness
PARCC Results: Spring 2015 and Spring 2016 Administrations Harding Township School September 26, 2016
Measuring College and Career Readiness

2. New jersey’s statewide assessment program
2016 marks the 2nd administration of the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the first opportunity to compare year-to-year results as the following slides will show.
Students took PARCC English Language Arts and Literacy Assessments (ELA/L) in grades 3–8.
Students took PARCC Mathematics Assessments in grades
3–8 and End of Course PARCC Assessments in Algebra I and Geometry.

3. PARCC Performance levels
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

4. Comparison of New Jersey Students Tested Spring 2015 and Spring 2016 PARCC Administrations Mathematics
Students Tested
Year to Year Increase
2016
2015
Grade 3
99,846
95,932
3,914
Grade 4
97,620
94,484
3,136
Grade 5
96,449
95,293
1,156
Grade 6
97,546
93,128
4,418
Grade 7
93,114
87,300
5,814
Grade 8*
60,768
58,078
2,690
Algebra I
106,118
91,740
14,378
Algebra II
74,643
58,026
16,617
Geometry
84,589
71,137
13,452
TOTAL
810,693
745,118
65,575
*Approximately 30,000 New Jersey students in grade 8 participated in the PARCC Algebra I assessment in place of the 8th grade Math assessment.
Notes: Data shown is preliminary. “Students Tested” represents individual valid test scores for Mathematics.

5. Comparison of New Jersey Students Tested Spring 2015 and Spring 2016 PARCC Administrations English Language Arts/Literacy
Students Tested
Year to Year Increase
2016
2015
Grade 3
99,045
95,227
3,818
Grade 4
96,823
93,769
3,054
Grade 5
95,760
94,599
1,161
Grade 6
96,896
92,578
4,318
Grade 7
95,979
90,227
5,752
Grade 8
94,266
88,421
5,845
Grade 9
93,830
81,574
12,256
Grade 10
84,903
71,659
13,244
Grade 11*
68,862
61,768
7,094
TOTAL
826,364
769,822
56,542
Note: Data shown is preliminary. “Students Tested” represents individual valid test scores for English Language Arts/Literacy.

6. Harding Township school’s 2016 PARCC GRADE-LEVEL Outcomes Mathematics
Count of Valid Test Scores
Not Yet Meeting
(Level 1)
Partially
Meeting
(Level 2)
Approaching
Expectations
(Level 3)
(Level 4)
Exceeding Expectation (Level 5)
District % >= Level 4
NJ % >= Level 4
Grade 3 32 3% 0% 6%
44%
47%
91%
52%
Grade 4 27 4%
74%
22%
96%
46%
Grade 5 34
12%
26%
56%
62%
Grade 6 31
10%
58%
23%
81%
43%
Grade 7
16%
13%
48%
71%
38%
Grade 8,
Algebra I
Geometry
N/A
N<10 -
HTS Totals
155 1% 7%
24%
80%
+ 21% from 2015
45% 6

7. Count of Valid Test Scores Exceeding Expectation (Level 5)
Harding Township school’s PARCC GRADE-LEVEL Outcomes English language arts/literacy
Count of Valid Test Scores
Not Yet Meeting
(Level 1)
Partially
Meeting
(Level 2)
Approaching
Expectations
(Level 3)
(Level 4)
Exceeding Expectation (Level 5)
District % >= Level 4
NJ % >= Level 4
Grade 3 32 3% 0% 6%
69%
22%
91%
47%
Grade 4 27
52%
48%
100%
54%
Grade 5 34
12%
71%
18%
89%
53%
Grade 6 31
10%
35%
87%
Grade 7
13%
68%
81%
57%
Grade 8 17
24%
77%
HTS Totals
172 2% 8%
36%
88%
+ 11%
from 2015

8. Comparison of Harding Township School Spring 2015 and Spring 2016 PARCC Administrations Grade level English Language Arts/Literacy
Not Yet Meeting Expectations
(Level 1)
Partially Meeting
Expectations
(Level 2)
Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
2015
2016
Grade 3 3 8 6 83 69 22
Grade 4 5 23 43 52 30 48
Grade 5 14 12 60 71 20 18
Grade 6 10 39 36 35
Grade 7 11 21 13 32 26 68
Grade 8 50 53 33 24
Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

9. COMPARISON OF Harding Township School and 2016 Spring PARCC Administrations ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY
% Change in Level 1 and Level 2
% Change in Level 4 and Level 5
Harding Township School
State
Grade 3
0 to 3%
↑ 3% ↓
3.4%
91 to 91 %
Even ↑
4.1%
Grade 4
5 to 0%
↓ 5%
0.6%
73 to 100%
↑ 27%
2.4%
Grade 5
6 to 0%
↓ 6%
0.9%
80 to 89%
↑ 9%
1.7%
Grade 6
12 to 3%
↓ 9%
1.9%
75 to 87%
↑ 12%
3.5%
Grade 7
22 to 6%
↓ 16%
3.3%
58 to 81%
↑ 23%
4.7%
Grade 8
3 to 18%
↑ 15%
3.0%
83 to 77%
3.6%
An up arrow indicates an increase of the % change from the previous year where a down arrow shows a decrease of the % change from the previous year.

10. Not Yet Meeting Expectations
Comparison of Harding township school Spring 2015 and Spring 2016 PARCC Administrations grade/course level MATHEMATICS
Not Yet Meeting Expectations
(Level 1)
Partially Meeting
Expectations
(Level 2)
Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
2015
2016
Grade 3 3 8 6 58 44 33 47
Grade 4 5 20 4 68 74 22
Grade 5 17 12 23 26 46 56 11
Grade 6 18 21 10 52
Grade 7 31 16 13 48
Grade 8*
N<10
Algebra I
Geometry
*Our Eighth grade students took the Grade 8 math assessment, Algebra I assessment, and the Geometry assessment. All three of these assessments had less than 10 students (N<10) taking them. As a result these scores will not be reported by the district.
Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

11. COMPARISON Harding Township’s 2015-2016 Spring PARCC Administrations MATHEMATICS
% Change in Level 1 and Level 2
% Change in Level 4 and Level 5
Harding Township School
State
Grade 3
0 to 3%
↑ 3% ↓
2.8%
91 to 91 %
Even ↑
6.8%
Grade 4
5 to 0%
↓ 5%
2.5%
76 to 96%
↑ 20%
5.9%
Grade 5
20 to 12 %
↓ 8%
2.3%
57 to 62%
↑ 5%
6.2%
Grade 6
21 to 9%
↓ 12%
1.0%
58 to 81%
↑ 23%
2.2%
Grade 7
37 to 16%
↓ 21%
0.9%
6 to 71%
↑ 65%
1.9%
Grade 8
Algebra I
Geometry -
N<10
1.3%
2.1%
An up arrow indicates an increase of the % change from the previous year where a down arrow shows a decrease of the % change from the previous year.
N<10 denotes that the sample size for this subject /grade is less than 10 students, and therefore not reportable.

12. Third grade Results- HTS % of students passing (scores of level 4 or level 5)

13. Fourth Grade results-HTS % of students passing (scores of level 4 or level 5)

14. Fifth Grade results-HTS % of students passing (Scores of level 4 or level 5)

15. Sixth Grade results-HTS % of students passing (Scores of level 4 or level 5)

16. Seventh Grade results-HTS % of Students passing (Scores of Level 4 or level 5)

17. Eighth Grade Results-HTS % of students passing (Scores of Level 4 or level 5)

18. Harding township school’s 2016 NJASK GRADE-LEVEL Outcomes Science
Count of Valid Test Scores
Partially Proficient
Proficient
Advanced Proficient
District % Passing
Grade 4 28 0%
18%
82%
100%
Grade 8 22
14%
45%
41%
86%
HTS Totals 50 6%
30%
64%
94%

19. Highlights and Takeaways from the 2016 PARCC Administration
Language Arts:
-HTS saw an increase in passing scores for every cohort grouping:
3rd to 4th= up 9%
4th to 5th= up 16%
5th to 6th= up 7%
6th to 7th= up 6%
7th to 8th= up 19%
As a school, HTS had 88% of its students passing the ELA assessment versus 77% passing last year (a double digit increase of 11%)
As a school, HTS had 4.0% less students achieving a Level 1 or Level 2 score in a comparison of same grade scores (2016 vs. 2015)
Our Fourth grade students achieved a 100 percent passing score in PARCC ELA and NJASK Science

20. Highlights and takeaways from the 2016 PARCC administration Continued
Mathematics
-HTS saw an increase in passing scores for the following cohort groups:
3rd to 4th= up 5%
5th to 6th= up 24%
6th to 7th= up 13%
As a school, HTS had 80% of its students passing the Math assessment versus 59% last year (a double digit increase of 21%)
As a school, HTS had 8.6% fewer students achieving a Level 1 or Level 2 score in a comparison of same grade scores (2016 vs. 2015)

21. Sample of HTS Curricular and Professional Development Initiatives from 2015-16
Implemented Columbia’s Teachers College Writing Workshop Grades K-5
Continued the full implementation of the Math in Focus program K-5
Next Generation Science Standards - Grades 6-8
Continued implementation of Columbia’s Teachers College Reading Workshop K-5
Faculty and staff attended an additional 6 hours of professional development hours (e.g. Madison Academy) outside of school hours

22. Questions to Guide PARCC Data Reflection
How will we use PARCC data to identify strengths and gaps that exist in our curriculum and instruction?
How will we use PARCC data as a tool to address areas in need of improvement or enhancement?
How can we provide additional resources and support for our educators to meet the learning needs of all our students?

23. Year Two Data Plan: Drilling Down
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

24. Next Steps for HTS
Teacher and administrative analysis of instructional areas in need of additional attention
-Grade level analysis
-School-wide analysis
Teacher and Director of Curriculum- Analysis of the pacing of our curriculum
-Are all areas of the curriculum being adequately addressed?
-Are there areas of the curriculum that need to be moved earlier or later in the year for cohesiveness and added understanding?
Administrative analysis of district-wide and grade level trends in Mathematics and English Language Arts

25. Resources for Parents
Information on the new PARCC Student Reports:
Understanding the student score reports (with translations): understandthescore.org/
Sample report