Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

CINNAMINSON TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2011 TEST SCORE PRESENTATION.

Published byLeslie Glenn Modified over 8 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "CINNAMINSON TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2011 TEST SCORE PRESENTATION."— Presentation transcript:

1 CINNAMINSON TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2011 TEST SCORE PRESENTATION

2 CINNAMINSON SCHOOL DISTRICT TEST SCORE PRESENTATION 2011 The following are some points to consider as you review the test data. Education in New Jersey ranks close to the top in national achievement as measured by NAEP, the National Assessment of Educational Progress. NJ ranks 2nd in the nation in grades 4 and 8 reading. NJ moved from 5th to 4th place in grade 4 math and from 5th to 3rd place in grade 8 math. Nearly all subgroups have improved since 2003, but there is still a gap in achievement between the total population and subgroups. State tests, as required by No Child Left Behind, are different in every state. What do the questions look like on NJ state tests? Neither teachers nor administrators are permitted to see the actual test questions. Within the slideshow, there are sample questions. While scores have been fairly steady in many areas, there are some notable changes in 2011.

3 This year our scores are higher than our DFG* and the state average in total scores for every test. Other changes: We have seen a 4 year upswing in math 8. There has been a 3 year upswing in math 5. There has been a 3 year decline in LAL 5. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is the state scale for indicating that schools are meeting requirements. The number indicates the percentage of students achieving scores of 200. Those expectations increased considerably in 2011 over 2010. While AYP improved over the report of 2010, and all total scores met requirements, three building subgroups failed to make AYP. There has been a decline in SAT scores. This situation is being addressed at the HS with The Princeton Review providing services to students and teachers along with other changes to the program. Cinnaminson has developed plans to recognize what practices supported increased scores so that we can continue those practices. We have also developed plans for improvement in areas where we have not seen insufficient growth. *DFG is the District Factor Group, a measure of income, education and other factors to compare communities. Our DFG is FG.

4

5 Grade 5 Sample Question - Math

6 Grade 8 Science: Sample Test Question

7 5 YEAR TREND: NJ ASK 3 – MATH Percentage of Total Population Passing ** Test was redesigned for 2009 administration

8 5 YEAR TREND: NJ ASK 3 – LANGUAGE ARTS Percentage of Total Population Passing ** Test was redesigned for 2009 administration

9 5 YEAR TREND: NJ ASK 4 – MATH Percentage of Total Population Passing **Test was redesigned for 2009 administration

10 5 YEAR TREND: NJ ASK 4 – LANGUAGE ARTS Percentage of Total Population Passing **Test was redesigned for 2009 administration

11 5 YEAR TREND: NJ ASK 5 – MATH Percentage of Total Population Passing **Test was redesigned for 2008 administration

12 5 YEAR TREND: NJ ASK 5 – LANGUAGE ARTS Percentage of Total Population Passing **Test was redesigned for 2008 administration

13 5 YEAR TREND: NJ ASK 6 – MATH Percentage of Total Population Passing **Test was redesigned for 2008 administration

14 5 YEAR TREND: NJ ASK 6 – LANGUAGE ARTS Percentage of Total Population Passing **Test was redesigned for 2008 administration

15 5 YEAR TREND: NJ ASK 7– MATH Percentage of Total Population Passing **Test was redesigned for 2008 administration

16 5 YEAR TREND: NJ ASK 7 – LANGUAGE ARTS Percentage of Total Population Passing **Test was redesigned for 2008 administration

17 4 YEAR TREND: NJ ASK 8– MATH Percentage of Total Population Passing **Test was redesigned for 2008 administration

18 4 YEAR TREND: NJ ASK 8 – LANGUAGE ARTS Percentage of Total Population Passing **Test was redesigned for 2008 administration

19 HSPA – 5 YEAR TREND (2007 – 2011) MATH Based on Total Population Scoring Proficient and Advanced Proficient for First Time Test Takers

20 HSPA – 5 YEAR TREND (2007 – 2011) LANGUAGE ARTS Based on Total Population Scoring Proficient and Advanced Proficient for First Time Test Takers

21 ASK 3 – 5 COMPARISON TO DFG AND STATE 2011 AND 2010 Percentage of total population scoring proficient and advanced proficient ASK 6-8 MATH COMPARISON TO DFG AND STATE: 2011 AND 2010 Percentage of total population scoring proficient and advanced proficient

22 ASK 6-8 LANGUAGE ARTS COMPARISON TO DFG AND STATE: 2011 AND 2010 Percentage of total population scoring proficient and advanced proficient

23 ASK 3 – 5 COMPARISON TO DFG AND STATE 2011 AND 2010 Percentage of total population scoring proficient and advanced proficient ASK 3-5 MATH COMPARISON TO DFG AND STATE: 2011 AND 2010 Percentage of total population scoring proficient and advanced proficient

24 ASK 3 – 5 COMPARISON TO DFG AND STATE 2011 AND 2010 Percentage of total population scoring proficient and advanced proficient ASK 3-5 LANGUAGE ARTS COMPARISON TO DFG AND STATE: 2011 AND 2010 Percentage of total population scoring proficient and advanced proficient

25 34567811 Sp Ed 66.767.969.042.318.533.340.9 Econ Dis 93.050.068.854.561.150.0N/A African American 66.756.292.342.957.935.7N/A 2011 – STATE TESTING: MATH Percentage of Sub-group Populations Scoring Proficient and Advanced Proficient

26 34567811 Sp Ed 40.028.644.826.944.460.081.8 Econ Dis 57.133.343.863.655.672.7N/A African American 46.231.253.852.478.950.0N/A 2011 – STATE TESTING: LANGUAGE ARTS Percentage of Sub-group Populations Scoring Proficient and Advanced Proficient

27 2011 ASK TEST RESULTS Math Scores for SPECIAL EDUCATION – District: DFG: State Based on Total Classified Population Scoring Proficient and Advanced Proficient

28 2011 ASK TEST RESULTS Language Arts Literacy Scores for SPECIAL EDUCATION District: DFG: State Based on Total Classified Population Scoring Proficient and Advanced Proficient

29 NJ ASK 8 SCIENCE – 3 YEAR HISTORY Compared to DFG and State Percentage of Total Population Passing

30 NJ ASK 4 SCIENCE – 3 YEAR HISTORY Compared to DFG and State Percentage of Total Population Passing

31 Content AreaGrade Span Starting Point 2003 2005-20072008-20102011-20132014 Language Arts Literacy 3 - 568755979100 6 – 858667286100 1173798592100 Mathematics3 - 553626683100 6 – 839496180100 1155647486100 New Jersey State Benchmarks for Adequate Yearly Progress Effective November 2009

32 RUSHMIDDLE SCHOOLHIGH SCHOOL LALMATHLALMATHLALMATH TOTAL POPULATION: YES *YES YES *YES CLASSIFIED STUDENTS: YES * YESNO AFRICAN- AMERICAN STUDENTS NOYESYES * N/A ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED: NOYESYES * N/A 2012 AYP STATUS by Building Based on 2010-2011 Test Scores * Made Safe Harbor

33 SAT 5 YEAR TREND: Year Number of students DIST TOTAL VERBAL STATE TOTAL VERBAL NATL TOTAL VERBAL DIST TOTAL MATH STATE TOTAL MATH NATL TOTAL MATH DIST TOTAL WRITING STATE TOTAL WRITING NATL TOTAL WRITING 2007 224 503495502522510515486494 2008 212 515495502527513515527496494 2009 218 509496501518513515510493 2010 239 510495501513514516499497492 2011 186 492495497502516514484497489

34 SAT® Participation Relative to High School Population Cohort Source: 2011 College-Bound Seniors Total Group Report; WICHE (2008)

35 2009-2010NJ ASK - Grade 7 Performance Level - LALProficient Performance Level - MathProficient Scaled Score - LAL240 Scaled Score - Math200 LAL Cluster Score - Reading39.0 LAL Cluster Score - Analyzing Text22.0 LAL Cluster Score - Working With Text17.0 LAL Cluster Score - Writing12.0 LAL Cluster Score - Persuasive Task8.0 LAL Cluster Score - Explanatory Task4.0 Math Cluster Score - Data Analysis6.0 Math Cluster Score - Geometry7.0 Math Cluster Score - Number Operations9.0 Math Cluster Score - Patterns4.0 Math Cluster Score - Problem Solving11.0 2008-2009NJ ASK - Grade 6Performance Level - LAL Proficient Performance Level - MathProficient Scaled Score - LAL 220 Scaled Score - Math221 2007-2008NJ ASK - Grade 5Performance Level - LAL Proficient Performance Level - MathProficient Scaled Score - LAL 214 Scaled Score - Math225 2006-2007NJ ASK - Grade 4Performance Level - LAL Proficient Performance Level - MathProficient Performance Level - ScienceAdvanced Proficient Scaled Score - LAL 241 Scaled Score - Math238 Scaled Score - Science264 2005-2006NJ ASK - Grade 3Performance Level - LALProficient Performance Level - MathProficient Scaled Score - LAL233 Scaled Score - Math223 Through NJ Smart, we can see all testing history for any student.

36 Using EdAnalyzer (NJ Smart Component), we can see how students who score partially proficient one subject compare to their performance in another subject. SamplePerformance Level MATH Performance Level LAL Student APartially Proficient Proficient Student BPartially Proficient Student CPartially Proficient Proficient Student DPartially Proficient Advanced Proficient Student EPartially Proficient Proficient SamplePerformance Level LAL Performance Level MATH Student APartially Proficient Proficient Student BPartially Proficient Proficient Student CPartially Proficient Student DPartially Proficient Proficient Student EPartially Proficient Advanced Proficient

Download ppt "CINNAMINSON TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2011 TEST SCORE PRESENTATION."

Similar presentations

1 2007 New Jersey Statewide Assessment Results: Highlights and Trends State Board of Education, February 6, 2008 Jay Doolan, Ed.D., Assistant Commissioner,

New Jersey Statewide Assessment Results: Highlights and Trends State Board of Education, February 6, 2008 Jay Doolan, Ed.D., Assistant Commissioner,
NJ ASSESSMENTS CYCLE II REPORT GRADES 3 through 8 and 11 September 6, 2007 For Haddonfield Public Schools.

NJ ASSESSMENTS CYCLE II REPORT GRADES 3 through 8 and 11 September 6, 2007 For Haddonfield Public Schools.
BETHLEHEM TOWNSHIP NJASK 3-8 RESULTS 2010-2011. How are we doing compared to the standard? % Partially Proficient % Proficient % Advanced Proficient.

BETHLEHEM TOWNSHIP NJASK 3-8 RESULTS How are we doing compared to the standard? % Partially Proficient % Proficient % Advanced Proficient.
‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.

‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.
Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.

Elementary/Secondary Education Act (1965) “No Child Left Behind” (2002) Adequacy Committee February 6,2008.
District Testing Report: Analyzing The Data Danielle M. Shanley Director of Curriculum and Instruction October 17, 2011 New Milford School District.

District Testing Report: Analyzing The Data Danielle M. Shanley Director of Curriculum and Instruction October 17, 2011 New Milford School District.
Mark J. Raivetz Superintendent Elizabeth Mennig Supervisor Teaching and Learning 21 October 2010 Assessment in the Haddon Township Public Schools 2010.

Mark J. Raivetz Superintendent Elizabeth Mennig Supervisor Teaching and Learning 21 October 2010 Assessment in the Haddon Township Public Schools 2010.
1 The Ewing Public Schools 2011-12 Overview of NCLB Results presented by Dr. Danita Ishibashi Assistant Superintendent.

1 The Ewing Public Schools Overview of NCLB Results presented by Dr. Danita Ishibashi Assistant Superintendent.
Review of NCLB Testing For Fair Lawn Board of Education and Public---October 2013 N.J.A.C. 6A:8-4.3(a) Accountability “Chief school administrators shall.

Review of NCLB Testing For Fair Lawn Board of Education and Public---October 2013 N.J.A.C. 6A:8-4.3(a) Accountability “Chief school administrators shall.
Washington Township 2007 Test Scores Washington Township Administrative Team October 23, 2007.

Washington Township 2007 Test Scores Washington Township Administrative Team October 23, 2007.
Review of NCLB Testing For Fair Lawn Board of Education and Public---October 2012 N.J.A.C. 6A:8-4.3(a) Accountability “Chief school administrators shall.

Review of NCLB Testing For Fair Lawn Board of Education and Public---October 2012 N.J.A.C. 6A:8-4.3(a) Accountability “Chief school administrators shall.
Warren Hills Regional School District State Assessment Results October 2013 Presenters Jaclyn Russo Director of Guidance Kimberly Unangst Director of Special.

Warren Hills Regional School District State Assessment Results October 2013 Presenters Jaclyn Russo Director of Guidance Kimberly Unangst Director of Special.
1 Prepared by: Research Services and Student Assessment & School Performance School Accountability in Florida: Grading Schools and Measuring Adequate Yearly.

1 Prepared by: Research Services and Student Assessment & School Performance School Accountability in Florida: Grading Schools and Measuring Adequate Yearly.
Catherine Cross Maple, Ph.D. Deputy Secretary Learning and Accountability

Catherine Cross Maple, Ph.D. Deputy Secretary Learning and Accountability
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.

Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
Analysis of Student Performance on Assessments 2010-2011.

Analysis of Student Performance on Assessments
Montana’s statewide longitudinal data system Project Montana’s Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS)

Montana’s statewide longitudinal data system Project Montana’s Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS)
Michigan’s Accountability Scorecards A Brief Introduction.

Michigan’s Accountability Scorecards A Brief Introduction.
San Leandro Unified School Board Looking Closely About Our Data September 6, 2006 Presented by Department of Curriculum and Instruction Prepared by Daniel.

San Leandro Unified School Board Looking Closely About Our Data September 6, 2006 Presented by Department of Curriculum and Instruction Prepared by Daniel.
District Assessment & Accountability Data Board of Education Report September 6, 2011 Marsha A. Brown, Director III – Student Services State Testing and.

District Assessment & Accountability Data Board of Education Report September 6, 2011 Marsha A. Brown, Director III – Student Services State Testing and.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google