Middletown Township Public Schools

Standardized Testing and Assessment Presentation

2011-2014

Presented By: Jill A. Takacs, Ed.D.

Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction

Two years ago, the NJ Department of Education began focusing on individualized standards for school districts and for sub groups of students. This change measures student growth relative to students themselves and not to an absolute value as in previous testing years. Therefore, district progress is no longer measured according to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), the absolute value, but rather to individualized growth models.

Assessment Renaissance

When analyzing data, it is essential to examine the information in regard to three reference points:

Compared to Standard Compared to Ourselves Compared to Others

Data Points

The first reference point answers the question, “How are we doing compared to standard?” Standard is a measure of proficiency that has been established by the NJ State Department of Education. With regard to student performance, “standard” is represented by the scaled score on the statewide assessment that is equated with Proficient and Advanced Proficient. On the NJASK for grades 3-8, the score that is equated with Proficient (or meeting grade level expectations) is 200. A score of 250 represents Advanced Proficient (exceeding grade level expectations).

Compared to Standard

Tracey Severns, Ed.D.

NJASK District Performance Over 4 years- Grade 3 ELA and Math

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

27.6

14.2 23.4

11.4

25.9

11.2 22.8

15.4

64.5

45.3

74.1

44.5

70.1

35.5

71.9

40.4

7.9

40.5

2.5

44.1

4

53.3

5.3

44.2

APPPP

NJASK District Performance Over 4 years- Grade 4 ELA, Math & Science

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

29.2 11.8

3.9

33.1

18.2 3.7

31.1

10.9 4.5

30.2

15.1 4.5

62.4

61.1

43.5

63.3

51.4

44.5

59.5

49.1

46.7

66.6

39.6

38.4

8.4

27.1

52.6

3.6

30.4

51.8

9.4

40 48.8

3.2

45.3 57.1

APPPP

NJASK District Performance Over 4 years- Grade 5 ELA and Math

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

25.8

0

30.1

7.8

30.2

10.7

26.4

10.5

66.8

52.1

65.3

50.9

61

32.6

65.6

40.9

7.4

47.9

4.6

41.3

8.8

56.7

8

48.6

APPPP

NJASK District Performance Over 4 years- Grade 6 ELA and Math

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

24.8 16.4

22.1 12.3

25.9

10.2

23.2 14.2

67.5

52.8

73.5

48.7

70

54.5

67.8

44.2

7.7

30.8

4.4

39

4.1

35.3

9

41.6

APPPP

NJASK District Performance Over 4 years- Grade 7 ELA and Math

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

23.3 23.5 31.6 33.2

24.8 26.9 26.1 24.3

59.2

42.6

58.1

40.9 58.1 42.4

58.5

45.9

17.5

33.9

10.3

25.9 17.1

30.7

15.4

29.8

APPPP

NJASK District Performance Over 4 years- Grade 8 ELA, Math & Science

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

9

19.2

3.9 9.3 18.2

3.7 12.2 22.5

4.5 12.8 15.9 10.9

69.9 42

43.5

77

40.3

44.5

76.3

38.8

46.7

74.1

35.3

63.7

21.1

38.8

52.6

13.7

41.5 51.8

11.5

38.7 48.8

13.1

48.8

25.4

APPPP

HSPA District Performance Over 5 years- ELA and Math

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

6.3 16.9

3.5 10.7

3.4 11.1

4.4 13.2

3.1 13.5

81.1 58 76.4

54.5 77.4

56.8 67.2 54.9

61.5

53.9

12.6 25.1 20.1

34.8

19.2 32.1 28.4 31.9 35.4 32.6

APPPP

School Performance Reports

Academic Achievement measures the content knowledge students have in language arts literacy and math. For elementary and middle schools, this includes measures of the school’s proficiency rate on both the LAL and Math sections of the NJASK. For high schools, the HSPA is used. A proficiency rate is calculated by summing the count of students who scored either proficient or advanced proficient on the assessment and dividing by the count of valid test scores.

College and Career Readiness measures the degree to which students are demonstrating behaviors that are indicative of future attendance and/or success in college and careers. For all elementary and middle schools, this includes a measurement of how many students are chronically absent. For schools with middle school grades, it also includes a measurement of how many students take Algebra I in either 7th or 8th grade. For high schools, this includes measures of participation in college readiness tests such as the SAT or PSAT and in rigorous coursework as defined by participation in AP courses in English, math, social studies and science.

Student Growth measures the performance of elementary and middle school students from one year to the next on the NJASK in LAL and Math when compared to students with similar history of performance on NJASK.

Graduation and Post-Secondary (for high school students) measures the rate at which students who begin high school four years earlier graduate within four years. Also included is a measure of the rate at which students in a particular school drop out of school.

A second measure of performance in relation to standard is determined by the degree to which a school meets or exceeds the NCLB Progress Targets established by the NJDOE. Progress Targets replaced AYP as an annual measure of progress and performance in 2012. Unlike AYP, which provided consistent benchmarks for the entire state, Progress Targets are uniquely calculated for the total population and each subgroup in each school (as required by the NCLB waiver). The methodology used to calculate Progress Targets was determined by the US Department of Education and designed to halve the gap between each subgroup’s 2011 proficiency rate and 100% proficient by 2017.

100% - 2011 proficiency rate /2 and then /6 = progress target for each year

Ex: 100 – 40 = 60 /2 = 30 /6 = 5 % expected growth per year AYP was based upon fixed benchmarks that rose every three years (regardless of students’ starting point) up to 2014, when all students were expected to meet or exceed Proficient. The second reference point answers the question, “How are we doing compared to ourselves?” Data that answers this question reveals progress or growth and can include an examination of aggregated or disaggregated student assessment data over time or a comparison of subgroups within a population in a given year.

Compared to Ourselves

Tracey Severns, Ed.D.

School Performance Reports School and State Targets

The final reference point answers the question, “How are we doing compared to others?” Data that answers this question reveals relative performance, as it places the information within a context so that the performance and progress of a given school or district can be compared to other similar schools or districts as well as the state. Prior to 2012, schools were often compared to their county or District Factor Group (DFG). The degree to which such comparisons could be considered “fair” depended on the composition of the districts in the county and whether the population within the school reflected the DFG (a measure of the relative wealth of the community in which the school was located). In order to improve comparability, the NJDOE established Peer Schools. As defined in the NJ School Performance Report, “Peer Schools are schools that have similar grade levels and students with similar demographic characteristics, such as the percentage of students qualifying for Free/Reduced Lunch, Limited English Proficiency programs or Special Education programs.”

Compared to Others

Tracey Severns, Ed.D.

Compared to Others

Met or Exceeded ELA DFG Average

Met or Exceeded Math DFG Average

Met or Exceeded Science DFG

Average

Grade 3 2010, 2012 2010, 2012. 2013 N/A

Grade 4 2010, 2011 2010, 2011 2010, 2012, 2014

Grade 5 2011 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

N/A

Grade 6 2010, 2012 2010, 2012, 2013 N/A

Grade 7 2010, 2011 2011, 2013 N/A

Grade 8 2011, 2012 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014 2010, 2011, 2014

HSPA 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010, 2011, 2012, 2013

N/A

In nearly all grades, subjects and subgroups, the district consistently meets or exceeds State averages and in many years meets or exceeds DFG averages.

School Performance Reports Statewide and Peer Group Percentiles

Review of Subgroup Performance and School Performance Reports necessitates increased efforts and attention in the following areas:

English Language Arts- focus on integration of ELA skills in all subject areas, targeted at CCSS skills, at both elementary and secondary levels; Subgroup performance analysis yields attention is needed across the board

Mathematics- focus on mathematical proficiencies, targeted at CCSS skills, at both elementary and secondary levels: Subgroup performance analysis yields attention is needed in targeted schools

Students with Disabilities- focus on specific student goals and objectives in ELA and mathematics, at both elementary and secondary levels; Subgroup performance analysis yields attention is needed in targeted schools

Economically Disadvantaged- focus on specific student goals and objectives in ELA and mathematics, targeted at CCSS skills, at both elementary and secondary levels; Subgroup performance analysis yields attention is needed in targeted schools

AP Tests- increase participation at both high schools and increase scores at HSS

SAT/ACT- increase participation and scores at HSN

Changes in State testing- There has been a noticeable impact on scores for 4th and 7th grade ELA and Mathematics across the State

Implementation of new initiatives and oversight take a few years to yield intended change

Personal hardship- e.g.: Super Storm Sandy

Small subgroups can fluctuate significantly from one year to the next due to the impact of the scores of one or two children

Changes in the administration of Alternate Proficiency Assessments for Special Education Students impacted District performance

Increased focus on differentiating instruction and data analysis

Increased professional development to support focus areas of instruction

New curricula, resources, and standards, which can also take a few years to yield intended change

Potential Reasons for Change

Expanded an In-House Professional Development Academy, increasing the utilization of teacher leaders as well as a District Assessment Committee for assessment reform

Offered After School Tutoring and Targeted Reading Program for educationally at-risk students

Offered family workshops including: Common Core Camp, Family Mathematics, Family Literacy, Family Engineering, Technology Expo

Infused technology skills and proficiencies throughout teaching and learning

Continued to offer a free summer program that included both targeted instruction and enrichment for students

Provided training in Readers’ and Writer’s Workshop for teams of teachers at Teacher’s College at Columbia University

Expanded instructional personnel: 6 Elementary Math Specialists, 6 Elementary Social Behavior Support Specialists, 3 S.T.E.M. specialists, 6 Educational Technology Teaching Specialists

Contracted with Dr. Eric Milou, Dr. Mary Lee Bass, and Dr. Judith Bazler of Monmouth University to provide ongoing professional development to District Math and Reading Specialists and high school biology teachers

Contracted with Heather Lopusznick, M.S. Ed., early childhood and special education consultant, to work with our pre-school and kindergarten teachers

Implemented a technology-based program entitled Algebra Fuse in Algebra I classes

Developed Essential Teaching and Leadership Behaviors to clearly define expectations and standards for teachers and administrators

Developed District SMART Goals (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Results Oriented and Time-Bound) for student achievement and professional development

Implemented additional formative measures including quarterly assessments and developed progress monitoring forms to track individual student growth

Implemented Changes for Improvement

42.65%

51.95%

5.40%

36.95%

50.20%

12.50%

31.20%

57.70%

11.10%

25.60%

57.10%

17.30%

22.8%

60.2%

17.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Partially Proficient Proficient Advanced Proficient

% P

rofi

cien

t

Proficiency Levels

MIDDLETOWN NJBCT RESULTS 2010-2014

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

49.0% 46.4%

4.6%

44.6% 44.6%

10.8%

31.7%

58.3%

10.1%

25.7%

57.0%

17.3%

23.6%

60.1%

16.4%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Partially Proficient Proficient Advanced Proficient

% P

rofi

cien

t

Proficiency Levels

NORTH NJBCT RESULTS

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

36.3%

57.5%

6.2%

29.3%

55.8%

14.8%

31.0%

57.2%

12.1%

25.5%

56.9%

17.3%

22.0%

60.4%

17.6%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Partially Proficient Proficient Advanced Proficient

% P

rofic

ient

Proficiency Levels

SOUTH NJBCT RESULTS

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

30.40%

48.80%

20.80%

41.60% 41.00%

17.30%

25.60%

57.10%

17.30%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Partially Proficient Proficient Advanced

TOTAL STUDENTS 2013 COMPARATIVE DATA

DFG

State

Middletown

69.60%

27.10%

3.30%

76.80%

20.40%

2.80%

52.40%

44.00%

3.60%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Partially Proficient Proficient Advanced

NJBCT RESULTS 2013 SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATION COMPARATIVE DATA

DFG

State

Middletown

Potential Reasons for Success on NJBCT

During the 2012-2013 School Year the District contracted with Dr. Judith Bazler, Monmouth University Professor for professional development services. Dr. Bazler assisted our teachers in reforming teaching practices to include increased skills and proficiencies necessary for success on the NJBCT

Quarterly assessments were developed by our teachers and administrators, with the assistance of Dr. Bazler, to inform our daily instructional practices and measure student growth

Revisions were made to College Prep, Honors, and AP Biology curricula

Sequence change was made in course of studies for all Freshman to take biology four years ago

Teachers will analyze NJASK test scores in both reading and

mathematics to identify deficits in specific strands. Teachers will track student cohort data and prepare lessons to meet individual student needs

Student Growth Objectives were developed to target skills and proficiencies needed for success with CCSS and PARCC assessments.

Teachers will use more formative assessments to evaluate on-going student progress

Differentiated instruction will be tailored for students needing individualized focus in specific skill areas in both LAL and mathematics

Co-teachers will analyze student scores in both language arts and mathematics to form individualized lessons

Teachers will create lessons involving argumentative and evidenced-based writing tasks using the Writer’s Workshop model

Reader’s Workshop and close reading strategies will continue Students will spend more time reading informational and

nonfiction texts to build on analyzing components of a text

Looking Ahead…

Looking Ahead… After School Tutoring programs will continue to be offered

to students who were partially proficient in ELA and mathematics

Teachers will continue to use educational websites such as www.brainpopjr.com and integrated educational technology (iPads, SmartBoards etc.) to augment lessons and homework

District Director of Evaluation and Assessment Practices and 3 Elementary Supervisors have been hired to closely monitor classroom instruction and to model best practices

Literacy Specialists were reallocated to serve the most at-risk population

The District Director of Evaluation and Assessment Practices is conducting co-observations with principals to identify best teaching and learning practices and to provide teachers with specific performance feedback

PARCC Surveys were administered to students, staff and parents to identify areas in need of focus

PARCC Preparation efforts have included: district PARCC website with community and staff resources, modeled lessons, staff trainings, completion of sample tests by teachers and students, analysis of CCSS to ensure curricular/instructional alignment, purchase of new curricular materials aligned to CCSS and PARCC format

“For true educational reform, we need to pay close attention to learning, evaluate and remediate

gaps, capitalize on strengths, and teach students to recognize and develop the skills and proficiencies they need to accomplish their educational goals. This empowerment will transform students from

passive learners to active learners and best prepare them for successful futures.”

Jill A. Takacs

Middletown Township Public Schools Standardized Testing and Assessment Presentation��2011-2014Slide Number 2Slide Number 3Slide Number 4NJASK District Performance Over 4 years- Grade 3 ELA and MathNJASK District Performance Over 4 years- Grade 4 ELA, Math & ScienceNJASK District Performance Over 4 years- Grade 5 ELA and MathNJASK District Performance Over 4 years- Grade 6 ELA and MathNJASK District Performance Over 4 years- Grade 7 ELA and MathNJASK District Performance Over 4 years- Grade 8 ELA, Math & ScienceHSPA District Performance �Over 5 years- ELA and Math�School Performance ReportsSlide Number 13Slide Number 14Slide Number 15Compared to OthersSchool Performance Reports�Statewide and Peer Group PercentilesReview of Subgroup Performance and School Performance Reports necessitates increased efforts and attention in the following areas:Potential Reasons for Change�Implemented Changes for Improvement� Slide Number 21Slide Number 22Slide Number 23Slide Number 24Slide Number 25Potential Reasons for Success on NJBCTLooking Ahead…Looking Ahead…Slide Number 29