Overview of Academic Achievement and Superintendent Goals
September 17, 2013
3-8 Grade Performance
3rd ELA (7th 2012) Greene 3 ELA 42.9% 1
Downsville 3 ELA 35.3% 2
Unatego 3 ELA 35.3% 3
GMU 3 ELA 32.1% 4
BG 3 ELA 31.9% 5
Delhi 3 ELA 31.4% 6
Franklin 3 ELA 26.7% 7
Walton 3 ELA 20.8% 8
Hancock 3 ELA 20.0% 9
Sidney 3 ELA 19.5% 10
Norwich 3 ELA 17.5% 11
Oxford 3 ELA 16.9% 12
Sherburne 3 ELA 16.2% 13
UV 3 ELA 15.2% 14
OV 3 ELA 9.1% 15
Afton 3 ELA 7.7% 16
3rd Math (6th 2012) Downsville 3 Math 41.2% 1
Franklin 3 Math 40.0% 2
Greene 3 Math 38.0% 3
Walton 3 Math 37.7% 4
Sidney 3 Math 31.3% 5
Unatego 3 Math 29.4% 6
Delhi 3 Math 29.4% 7
GMU 3 Math 28.6% 8
UV 3 Math 28.3% 9
Oxford 3 Math 25.4% 10
Sherburne 3 Math 22.4% 11
Norwich 3 Math 20.4% 12
BG 3 Math 17.1% 13
Hancock 3 Math 16.0% 14
OV 3 Math 9.0% 15
Afton 3 Math 7.7% 16
4th ELA (11th 2012) Delhi 4 ELA 36.5% 1
OV 4 ELA 33.4% 2
Greene 4 ELA 33.3% 3
GMU 4 ELA 30.4% 4
Sherburne 4 ELA 25.9% 5
Sidney 4 ELA 25.8% 6
Unatego 4 ELA 24.7% 7
Franklin 4 ELA 22.3% 8
Walton 4 ELA 20.0% 9
Oxford 4 ELA 19.2% 10
Afton 4 ELA 18.8% 11
UV 4 ELA 16.4% 12
Norwich 4 ELA 14.3% 13
Downsville 4 ELA 10.6% 14
BG 4 ELA 11.3% 15
Hancock 4 ELA 8.4% 16
4th Math (14th 2012) Sidney 4 Math 50.9% 1
Greene 4 Math 46.2% 2
Delhi 4 Math 45.2% 3
Afton 4 Math 37.5% 4
GMU 4 Math 34.7% 5
Unatego 4 Math 30.2% 6
Sherburne 4 Math 26.7% 7
Walton 4 Math 25.7% 8
Oxford 4 Math 23.0% 9
Norwich 4 Math 21.5% 10
OV 4 Math 20.0% 11
BG 4 Math 16.1% 12
Franklin 4 Math 15.8% 13
UV 4 Math 13.4% 14
Hancock 4 Math 12.5% 15
Downsville 4 Math 5.3% 16
5th ELA (13th 2012) Franklin 5 ELA 53.3% 1
Downsville 5 ELA 35.3% 2
Greene 5 ELA 35.2% 3
GMU 5 ELA 32.5% 4
Delhi 5 ELA 32.0% 5
Unatego 5 ELA 25.8% 6
Afton 5 ELA 24.5% 7
Sidney 5 ELA 24.0% 8
OV 5 ELA 21.5% 9
Walton 5 ELA 18.8% 10
Hancock 5 ELA 18.5% 11
Norwich 5 ELA 17.4% 12
UV 5 ELA 15.4% 13
Sherburne 5 ELA 13.0% 14
Oxford 5 ELA 10.5% 15
BG 5 ELA 8.5% 16
5th Math (13th 2012) GMU 5 Math 37.5% 1
Sidney 5 Math 35.0% 2
Afton 5 Math 31.1% 3
Greene 5 Math 26.8% 4
Downsville 5 Math 23.6% 5
Norwich 5 Math 21.6% 6
OV 5 Math 21.5% 7
Walton 5 Math 20.3% 8
Franklin 5 Math 20.0% 9
BG 5 Math 18.8% 10
Delhi 5 Math 16.0% 11
UV 5 Math 13.6% 12
Sherburne 5 Math 11.7% 13
Unatego 5 Math 8.2% 14
Hancock 5 Math 6.9% 15
Oxford 5 Math 3.5% 16
6th ELA (9th 2012)
Franklin 6 ELA 47.6% 1
Sherburne 6 ELA 35.2% 2
BG 6 ELA 32.5% 3
Norwich 6 ELA 30.6% 4
Greene 6 ELA 27.7% 5
Hancock 6 ELA 26.9% 6
UV 6 ELA 26.1% 7
Sidney 6 ELA 24.3% 8
Walton 6 ELA 23.7% 9
Oxford 6 ELA 22.0% 10
Unatego 6 ELA 21.2% 11
Afton 6 ELA 17.8% 12
Delhi 6 ELA 17.4% 13
OV 6 ELA 16.0% 14
Downsville 6 ELA 11.8% 15
GMU 6 ELA 10.0% 16
6th Math (12th 2012) Hancock 6 Math 42.3% 1
Sidney 6 Math 37.0% 2
Delhi 6 Math 33.3% 3
BG 6 Math 30.7% 4
Norwich 6 Math 25.1% 5
Greene 6 Math 25.0% 6
Sherburne 6 Math 24.4% 7
Franklin 6 Math 19.1% 8
OV 6 Math 16.7% 9
Oxford 6 Math 16.2% 10
Downsville 6 Math 11.8% 11
Unatego 6 Math 11.8% 12
Afton 6 Math 10.7% 13
Walton 6 Math 10.4% 14
UV 6 Math 10.1% 15
GMU 6 Math 10.0% 16
7th ELA (6th 2012) Greene 7 ELA 40.8% 1
Delhi 7 ELA 40.0% 2
Franklin 7 ELA 34.8% 3
BG 7 ELA 35.6% 4
Sidney 7 ELA 33.8% 5
Sherburne 7 ELA 32.3% 6
Hancock 7 ELA 31.6% 7
GMU 7 ELA 30.0% 8
UV 7 ELA 28.6% 9
Walton 7 ELA 25.6% 10
Norwich 7 ELA 22.2% 11
Downsville 7 ELA 21.9% 12
Oxford 7 ELA 21.1% 13
Unatego 7 ELA 19.5% 14
Afton 7 ELA 10.0% 15
OV 7 ELA 9.1% 16
7th Math (2nd 2012) Delhi 7 Math 34.5% 1
Hancock 7 Math 31.6% 2
Greene 7 Math 28.8% 3
GMU 7 Math 25.0% 4
Sidney 7 Math 22.7% 5
Franklin 7 Math 21.7% 6
Unatego 7 Math 21.0% 7
Oxford 7 Math 17.5% 8
BG 7 Math 16.9% 9
Norwich 7 Math 13.4% 10
Sherburne 7 Math 9.2% 11
Walton 7 Math 9.0% 12
Downsville 7 Math 6.5% 13
OV 7 Math 6.1% 14
UV 7 Math 3.6% 15
Afton 7 Math 3.3% 16
8th ELA (5th 2012) Delhi 8 ELA 43.1% 1
Franklin 8 ELA 34.6% 2
Norwich 8 ELA 33.7% 3
Hancock 8 ELA 32.1% 4
Walton 8 ELA 31.5% 5
Sidney 8 ELA 30.6% 6
Unatego 8 ELA 30.1% 7
BG 8 ELA 29.9% 8
Sherburne 8 ELA 29.0% 9
Greene 8 ELA 26.4% 10
Oxford 8 ELA 25.4% 11
Downsville 8 ELA 23.6% 12
Afton 8 ELA 19.0% 13
UV 8 ELA 17.9% 14
GMU 8 ELA 15.3% 15
OV 8 ELA 5.0% 16
8th Math (5th 2012) Delhi 8 Math 26.3% 1
Greene 8 Math 24.1% 2
Norwich 8 Math 17.6% 3
Oxford 8 Math 14.9% 4
BG 8 Math 13.4% 5
Downsville 8 Math 11.8% 6
Sherburne 8 Math 10.0% 7
Sidney 8 Math 9.4% 8
Unatego 8 Math 8.3% 9
Hancock 8 Math 7.1% 10
Walton 8 Math 4.1% 11
Franklin 8 Math 3.8% 12
Afton 8 Math 2.4% 13
UV 8 Math 1.8% 14
GMU 8 Math 0.0% 15
OV 8 Math 0.0% 16
Overall Performance ELA (11th in 2012, 13th in 2011, and 15th in 2010)
Franklin 118 43 36.4%
Greene 452 154 34.1%
Delhi 323 110 34.1%
GMU 177 47 26.5%
Sidney 452 119 26.3%
Unatego 447 115 25.7%
BG 359 92 25.6%
Sherburne 553 140 25.3%
Walton 443 104 23.5%
Norwich 826 189 22.9%
Hancock 149 34 22.8%
Downsville 119 27 22.7%
UV 359 72 20.1%
Oxford 360 70 19.4%
Afton 232 39 16.8%
OV 158 26 16.5%
Overall Performance Math (10th in 2012, 12th in 2011, and 14th in 2010) Greene 447 140 31.3%
Delhi 320 100 31.2%
Sidney 454 136 29.9%
GMU 177 43 24.3%
Norwich 829 164 19.8%
BG 361 70 19.4%
Hancock 151 28 18.5%
Franklin 119 22 18.5%
Unatego 443 81 18.3%
Walton 444 79 17.8%
Sherburne 541 95 17.6%
Afton 232 40 17.2%
Oxford 360 60 16.6%
Downsville 118 18 15.3%
OV 157 20 12.8%
UV 360 41 11.4%
Conversion
• State sent out conversion tables to be able to compare 2012 data to 2013 data.
ELA Performance (Converted)
K 90 88 97.8%
1st 79 61 77.2%
2nd 73 70 95.9%
3rd 82 32 39.0%
4th 58 31 53.4%
382 282 73.8%
K-4 Math (Converted)
K 91 90 98.9%
1st 79 55 69.6%
2nd 73 70 95.9%
3rd 82 56 67.9%
4th 59 44 74.6%
384 315 82.0%
766 597 77.9%
5-8 ELA (Converted)
5th 79 41 51.8%
6th 74 37 50.0%
7th 74 41 55.4%
8th 85 44 51.8%
312 163 52.2%
5-8 Grade Math (Converted)
5th 80 58 72.5%
6th 73 46 63.0%
7th 75 54 72.0%
8th 85 47 55.3%
313 205 65.5%
625 368 58.9%
ELA Compared
ELA 2012 2013 Growth
3 48 39 -9
4 50 53.4 3.4
5 44.6 51.8 7.2
6 51.3 50 -1.3
7 47.1 55.4 8.3
8 50.7 51.8 1.1
Math Compared
Math 2012 2013 Growth
3 63.8 67.9 4.1
4 52.4 74.6 22.2
5 49.3 72.5 23.2
6 51.3 63 11.7
7 70.6 72 1.4
8 57.1 55.3 -1.8
3-8 Grade Math
# Tested # Prof Percentage Rank
Vestal 1614 724 44.8% 1
ME 1099 434 39.5% 2
Tioga 464 148 31.9% 3
UE 1808 572 31.6% 4
Greene 447 140 31.3% 5
Delhi 320 100 31.2% 6
Windsor 751 231 30.8% 7
Sidney 454 136 29.9% 8
Owego 973 282 29.0% 9
SV 691 199 28.8% 10
CF 735 191 26.0% 11
CV 798 204 25.6% 12
WP 650 166 25.5% 13
GMU 177 43 24.3% 14
Newark Valley 548 127 23.2% 15
Norwich 829 164 19.8% 16
JC 1160 225 19.4% 17
BG 361 70 19.4% 18
Harpursville 409 77 18.8% 19
Hancock 151 28 18.5% 20
Franklin 119 22 18.5% 21
Unatego 443 81 18.3% 22
Deposit 259 47 18.2% 23
Walton 444 79 17.8% 24
Sherburne 541 95 17.6% 25
Afton 232 40 17.2% 26
Oxford 360 60 16.6% 27
Downsville 118 18 15.3% 28
OV 157 20 12.8% 29
Binghamton 2516 319 12.7% 30
UV 360 41 11.4% 31
The one quality all successful people have is persistence. Their willingness to spend more time accomplishing a task and to persevere in face of difficult odds.
-----Joyce Brothers
High School Results Test 2011 2012 2013 Growth 2011 2012 2013 Growth
Global 80 85 91 6 22 42 43 1
US History 84 90 97 7 39 51 67 16
ELA 91 88 96 8 49 43 51 8
Algebra 49 75 90 15 2 21 12 -9
Geometry 59 92 93 1 7 28 28 6
Algebra II 35 45 29 -16 10 2 12 10
Physics 77 100 83 -17 26 17 25 8
Living Env. 95 96 94 -2 40 54 38 -16
Chemistry 65 78 78 0 6 9 10 1
Earth Science 66 90 24 16 44 28
College Courses
College Class Offerings
26 different course offerings
Seniors 56 out of 86 students (65%)
264 Courses taken
732 credits earned
$209,965 worth of tuition (No cost to the students)
College and Career Ready
• Algebra (80%)
– 2010-2011 15%
– 2011-2012 32%
– 2012-2013 39%
• ELA (75%)
– 2010-2011 (NS)
– 2011-2012 72%
– 2012-2013 84%
So what is next??
• Successful schools do the following:
– Strong focus on academic achievement
– Clear and viable curriculum
– Frequent assessment of student progress and multiple opportunities for improvement
– Have a strong monitoring and feedback system for instructional practice that includes clear expectations and success driven outcomes.
Have a strong monitoring and feedback system for instructional practice that
includes clear expectations and success driven outcomes.
• 2 Instructional coaches and 1 Director of School Improvement working with Director of Curriculum.
– More emphasis on practice of teaching.
– Clear expectations of continual improvement.
– Focus has been on the what and the outcome. Focus can know shift to the how.
Focus School Determination
• From the 2009-2010 school year.
• Still requires improvement plan and SED visits.
• QIP is back in place for students with disabilities.
• Classification is not related to regular education results. All special education results.
Focus for this year
• Maintain a strong curriculum to assessment program.
– Increase the frequency of “teacher” generated formative assessment.
• Improve RTI practice.
– Reduce the number of referrals to special education.
• Increase focus on writing. Implement quarterly writing prompts and improve vertical alignment.
Special Education vs. Intervention
• Special Education
– Disabilities only
• Intervention (Regular Ed)
– Providing support to the regular education process (help)
Summary of Goals
• Maintain a strong curriculum to assessment program. – Increase the frequency of “teacher” generated
formative assessment.
• Improve the RTI/Special Education process addressing the intervention process.
• Increase focus on writing. Implement quarterly writing prompts and improve vertical alignment.