Measures of Academic Progress Fall 2014

Report
Dr. Alex Anemone, Superintendent
November 17, 2014






Testing dates: October 6-24, 2014
Grade 2: Math and Reading
Grades 3-8: Math, Reading, and Language
Usage
MAP is completed online and has predictive
value.
Approximately 50-55 questions per subject.
RIT is the equal interval score unit.
Part. Prof. Part.
Predicted Prof.
Actual
Proficient
Predicted
Proficient
Actual
Adv. Prof.
Predicted
Adv.
Prof.
Actual
Math
18.7%
11.2%
50.2%
35.4%
31.0%
53.4%
ELA
18.0%
13.6%
64.4%
68.0%
17.6%
18.4%
MAP for
Prim.
Grades
Low
120%ile
LoAvg
2140%ile
Avg
4160%ile
HiAvg
6180%ile
High
8199%ile
HTS
Mean
RIT
National
Mean
RIT
Math
0 (0%)
2 (6%)
4 (12%)
6 (18%)
21(64%)
193.1
178.2
Reading
0 (0%)
2 (6%)
5 (15%)
7 (21%)
19 (58%)
190.4
175.9
MAP
Low
120%ile
LoAvg
2140%ile
Avg
4160%ile
HiAvg
6180%ile
Math
0 (0%)
2 (8%)
3 (12%)
Reading
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Lang.
Usage
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
High
8199%ile
HTS
Mean
RIT
National
Mean
RIT
11 (42%) 10 (38%)
200.4
192.1
3 (12%)
4 (15%)
19 (73%)
206.4
189.9
3 (12%)
7 (27%)
16 (62%)
204.8
191.1
MAP
Low
120%ile
LoAvg
2140%ile
Avg
4160%ile
HiAvg
6180%ile
High
8199%ile
HTS
Mean
RIT
National
Mean
RIT
Math
3 (7%)
4 (10%)
11 (27%) 10 (24%) 13 (32%) 209.6
203.8
Reading
2 (5%)
1 (2%)
9 (22%)
15 (37%) 14 (34%) 210.2
199.8
Lang.
Usage
3 (8%)
1 (3%)
6 (15%)
14 (35%) 16 (40%) 209.1
200.9
MAP
Low
120%ile
LoAvg
2140%ile
Avg
4160%ile
HiAvg
6180%ile
High
8199%ile
HTS
Mean
RIT
National
Mean
RIT
Math
1 (3%)
3 (8%)
5 (13%)
10 (26%) 20 (51%) 226.7
212.9
Reading
2 (5%)
1 (3%)
5 (13%)
13 (33%) 18 (46%) 218.3
207.1
Lang.
Usage
1 (3%)
2 (5%)
4 (10%)
13 (33%) 19 (49%) 219.3
208.0
MAP
Low
120%ile
LoAvg
2140%ile
Avg
4160%ile
HiAvg
6180%ile
High
8199%ile
HTS
Mean
RIT
National
Mean
RIT
Math
3 (9%)
5 (15%)
3 (9%)
16 (47%) 7 (21%)
224.0
219.6
Reading
1 (3%)
5 (15%)
3 (9%)
11 (32%) 14 (41%) 220.4
212.3
Lang.
Usage
2 (6%)
3 (9%)
5 (15%)
7 (21%)
212.3
17 (50%) 221.0
MAP
Low
120%ile
LoAvg
2140%ile
Avg
4160%ile
HiAvg
6180%ile
High
8199%ile
HTS
Mean
RIT
National
Mean
RIT
Math
4 (19%)
3 (14%)
5 (24%)
5 (24%)
4 (19%)
228.4
225.6
Reading
3 (14%)
4 (19%)
4 (19%)
5 (24%)
5 (24%)
218.6
216.3
Lang.
Usage
3 (14%)
2 (10%)
4(19%)
5 (24%)
7 (33%)
220.6
215.8
MAP
Low
120%ile
LoAvg
2140%ile
Avg
4160%ile
Math
6 (19%)
1 (3%)
Reading
6 (19%)
Lang.
Usage
2 (6%)
HiAvg
6180%ile
High
8199%ile
HTS
Mean
RIT
National
Mean
RIT
10 (31%) 5 (16%)
10 (31%)
233.5
230.2
0 (0%)
7 (22%)
9 (28%)
10 (31%)
225.2
219.3
4 (13%)
5 (16%)
10 (31%) 11 (34%)
226.6
218.7
HTS Math RIT
National Math
RIT
Difference RIT
Grade 2
193.1
178.2
+14.9
Grade 3
200.4
192.1
+8.3
Grade 4
209.6
203.8
+5.8
Grade 5
226.7
212.9
+13.8
Grade 6
224.0
219.6
+4.4
Grade 7
228.4
225.6
+2.8
Grade 8
233.5
230.2
+3.3
245
235
225
215
HTS
205
National
195
185
175
Gr. 2
Gr. 3
Gr. 4
Gr. 5
Gr. 6
Gr. 7
Gr. 8
HTS Reading RIT
National Reading Difference RIT
RIT
Grade 2
190.4
175.9
+14.5
Grade 3
206.4
189.9
+16.5
Grade 4
210.2
199.8
+10.4
Grade 5
218.3
207.1
+11.2
Grade 6
220.4
212.3
+8.1
Grade 7
218.6
216.3
+2.3
Grade 8
225.2
219.3
+5.9
245
235
225
215
HTS
205
National
195
185
175
Gr. 2
Gr. 3
Gr. 4
Gr. 5
Gr. 6
Gr. 7
Gr. 8
HTS Language
Usage RIT
National Lang.
Usage RIT
Difference RIT
N/A
N/A
N/A
Grade 3
204.8
191.1
+13.7
Grade 4
209.1
200.9
+8.2
Grade 5
219.3
208.0
+11.3
Grade 6
221.0
212.3
+8.7
Grade 7
220.6
215.8
+4.8
Grade 8
226.6
218.7
+7.9
Grade 2
245
235
225
215
HTS
205
National
195
185
175
Gr. 3
Gr. 4
Gr. 5
Gr. 6
Gr. 7
Gr. 8
245
235
225
215
Math
205
Reading
Language
195
185
175
Gr. 2
Gr. 3
Gr. 4
Gr. 5
Gr. 6
Gr. 7
Gr. 8




Share data with staff.
Differentiate – enrichment and remediation.
Continue to track growth and examine gaps
that may exist.
Align professional development activities as
appropriate.




HTS Class
grade 8)
HTS Class
grade 7)
HTS Class
grade 6)
HTS Class
grade 5)
of 2014: 6 transfers (2013-2014
of 2015: 8 transfers (2013-2014
of 2016: 3 transfers (2013-2014
of 2017: 6 transfers (2013-2014
ELA
Advanced Proficient 2 students (8.7%)
Math
11 students (47.8%)
Proficient
19 students (82.6%) 11 students (47.8%)
Partially Proficient
2 students (8.7%)
1 student (4.3%)


District Factor Groupings measure and
compare entire communities, not schools.
With inclusion of the transfer students and
assuming their scores remained constant,
2014 NJASK Grades 5-8 passing rate
(advanced proficient + proficient) in ELA
would have increased by 1.0% and the
passing rate in math would have increased by
1.3%



“Aid in Lieu” payments ($884 per child/per
school year) are made to families that send their
children to private schools and do not get bussed
to that particular school.
The AIL data does not include students who are
bussed to private schools. 2014-2015 school
year – 70 students are bussed to private schools
The data does seem to indicate that Harding
serves a significantly lower percentage of the
total student population than our peer districts.
Again, DFGs represent communities, not schools.
District
Total
Public Schools
Aid in Lieu
Harding (DFG J)
532
395 (74.2%)
137 (25.8%)
Millburn (J)
5,162
4,881 (94.6%)
281 (5.4%)
Chatham (J)
4,383
4,206 (96.0%)
177 (4.0%)
Mt. Lakes (J)
1,598
1,560 (97.6%)
38 (2.4%)
Ridgewood (J)
~5,825
5,725 (98.3%)
<100 (1.7%)
Mendham T. (J)
~1054
~1039 (98.6%)
15 (1.4%)
Mendham B. (J)
~866
~842 (97.2%)
24 (2.8%)
Up. Saddle R. (J)
~1,901
~1,839 (96.7)
62 (3.3%)
Hanover Twp. (I)
~2,100
~2,044 (97.3%)
56 (2.7%)
Madison (I)
2,702
2,574 (95.3%)
128 (4.7%)

similar documents