PARCC RESULTS: YEAR TWO

Measuring College and

Teaneck Public Schools District Presentation

Career Readiness

October 19, 2016

1

PRESENTATION

PARCC Results

NJASK Science Results – Grades 4 and 8

NJ Biology Competency

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 – 11.

Students took PARCC Mathematics Assessments in grades 3 – 8 and End-of-Course Assessments in Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II.

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

2016 PARCC GRADE-LEVEL OUTCOMES
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY

		Count of Valid Test Scores
	Level 1
	Level 2
	Level 3
	Level 4
	Level 5
	District % > = Level 4
	NJ % > = Level 4
	Cross-State % > = Level 4
	
	Grade 3
	226
	8.4
	15.0
	27.4
	42.0
	7.1
	49.1
	47.6
	39.7
	
	Grade 4
	237
	3.4
	16.5
	24.1
	38.8
	17.3
	56.1
	53.5
	43.1
	
	Grade 5
	260
	5.0
	15.4
	31.5
	45.4
	2.7
	48.1
	53.2
	42.4
	
	Grade 6
	248
	7.7
	11.7
	21.4
	46.0
	13.3
	59.3
	52.3
	41.2
	
	Grade 7
	240
	7.5
	11.7
	25.8
	37.1
	17.9
	55.0
	56.3
	43.8
	
	Grade 8
	246
	7.7
	12.2
	22.8
	50.0
	7.3
	57.3
	55.2
	44.2
	
	Grade 9
	293
	13.7
	13.3
	21.5
	37.2
	14.3
	51.5
	48.5
	39.0
	
	Grade 10
	327
	30.6
	15.6
	16.2
	26.3
	11.3
	37.6
	43.3
	40.4
	
	Grade 11
	263
	29.3
	16.3
	21.3
	27.4
	5.7
	33.1
	39.1
	38.4

COMPARISON OF PARCC SPRING 2015 AND SPRING 2016 RESULTS 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
	2015
	2016
	2015
	2016
	2015
	2016
	2015
	2016
		
	Grade 3
	9%
	8.4%
	17%
	15.0%
	29%
	27.4%
	38%
	42.0%
	7%
	7.1%
		
	Grade 4
	8%
	3.4%
	15%
	16.5%
	30%
	24.1%
	39%
	38.8%
	8%
	17.3%
		
	Grade 5
	6%
	5.0%
	16%
	15.4%
	26%
	31.5%
	47%
	45.4%
	5%
	2.7%
		
	Grade 6
	8%
	7.7%
	14%
	11.7%
	29%
	21.4%
	43%
	46.0%
	7%
	13.3%
		
	Grade 7
	9%
	7.5%
	14%
	11.7%
	24%
	25.8%
	41%
	37.1%
	12%
	17.9%
		
	Grade 8
	9%
	7.7%
	12%
	12.2%
	20%
	22.8%
	45%
	50.0%
	13%
	7.3%
		
	Grade 9
	23%
	13.7%
	22%
	13.3%
	23%
	21.5%
	27%
	37.2%
	5%
	14.3%
		
	Grade 10
	30%
	30.6%
	25%
	15.6%
	18%
	16.2%
	21%
	26.3%
	6%
	11.3%
		
	Grade 11*
	24%
	29.3%
	18%
	16.3%
	18%
	21.3%
	31%
	27.4%
	8%
	5.7%

*Grade 11 does not include students who took an AP/IB test. Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

6

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY COMPARISON 2015 – 2016 Grade 3 and 4

District Percentage Greater than or Equal to Level 4

49.1	56.1 45                    47

2015 2016

2016

Grade 3	Grade 4	2015

7

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY COMPARISON 2015 – 2016 Grades 5 - 8

District Percentage Greater than or Equal to Level 4

59.3

52	48.1	50

55	57.3 53                       58

2015 2016

2016

Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8	2015

8

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY COMPARISON 2015 - 2016 Grade 9 - 11

District Percentage Greater than or Equal to Level 4 51.5

37.6

39

32	27

33.1

2015

2016

2016 2015

Grade 9	Grade 10	Grade 11

9

2016 PARCC GRADE-LEVEL OUTCOMES
MATHEMATICS

	Count of Valid Test Scores
	Level 1
	Level 2
	Level 3
	Level 4
	Level 5
	District % > = Level 4
	NJ % > = Level 4
	Cross-State % > = Level 4
	
Grade 3
	229
	6.1
	14.0
	27.9
	37.1
	14.8
	52.0
	51.7
	44.0
	
Grade 4
	238
	7.6
	21.4
	28.2
	37.4
	5.5
	42.9
	46.6
	37.1
	
Grade 5
	261
	5.4
	23.0
	31.0
	33.3
	7.3
	40.6
	47.2
	37.6
	
Grade 6
	249
	8.4
	17.7
	31.3
	33.7
	8.8
	42.6
	43.0
	34.0
	
Grade 7
	240
	10.4
	20.8
	31.7
	34.2
	2.9
	37.1
	38.7
	30.7
	
Grade 8*
	205
	17.1
	18.0
	31.2
	32.7
	1.0
	33.7
	25.6
	28.7
	
Algebra I
	319
	15.0
	16.6
	27.9
	37.9
	2.5
	40.4
	41.2
	33.1
	
Geometry
	302
	14.6
	35.8
	34.4
	14.9
	.3
	15.2
	27.0
	27.0
	
Algebra II
	263
	41.8
	26.2
	16.0
	16.0
	0.0
	16.0
	25.0
	23.1

COMPARISON OF PARCC SPRING 2015 AND SPRING 2016 RESULTS 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
	2015
	2016
	2015
	2016
	2015
	2016
	2015
	2016
		
	Grade 3
	3%
	6.1%
	16%
	14.0%
	31%
	27.9%
	9%
	37.1%
	9%
	14.8%
		
	Grade 4
	5%
	7.6%
	28%
	21.4%
	29%
	28.2%
	36%
	37.4%
	3%
	5.5%
		
	Grade 5
	5%
	5.4%
	21%
	23.0%
	29%
	31.0%
	41%
	33.3%
	4%
	7.3%
		
	Grade 6
	6%
	8.4%
	21%
	17.7%
	31%
	31.3%
	35%
	33.7%
	6%
	8.8%
		
	Grade 7
	7%
	10.4%
	21%
	20.8%
	36%
	31.7%
	33%
	34.2%
	2%
	2.9%
		
	Grade 8*
	20%
	17.1%
	20%
	18.0%
	30%
	31.2%
	29%
	32.7%
	1%
	1.0%
		
	Algebra I
	19%
	15.0%
	26%
	16.6%
	23%
	27.9%
	27%
	37.9%
	5%
	2.5%
		
	Geometry
	14%
	14.6%
	41%
	35.8%
	32%
	34.4%
	12%
	14.9 %
	1%
	.3%
		
	Algebra II
	43%
	41.8%
	29%
	26.2%
	14%
	16.0%
	13%
	16.0%
	0%
	0.0%

*Some students in grade 8 participated in the PARCC Algebra I assessment in place of the 8th grade Math assessment. Thus, PARCC Math 8 outcomes are not representative of grade 8 performance as a whole.
Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

11

MATHEMATICS COMPARISON 2015 – 2016 Grade 3 - 4

District Percentage Greater than or Equal to Level 4

52

50	42.9

39
2015

2016

2016 2015

Grade 3	Grade 4

12

MATHEMATICS COMPARISON 2015 – 2016 Grades 5 - 8

District Percentage Greater or Equal to Level 4

45	40.6	41 42.6		37.1	33.7 35
30

2015 2016

2016 Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8	2015

13

MATHEMATICS COMPARISON 2015 – 2016
ALGEBRA I, GEOMETRY, ALGEBRA II

District Percentage Greater than or Equal to Level 4 40

32

15.2	16

13	13
2016

2015

2016

Algebra I
Geometry

2015

Algebra II

14

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY COHORT ANALYSIS GRADES 3 - 4

Percentage Greater than or Equal to Level 4

School
	Grade 3 (2015) LAL
	Grade 4 (2016) LAL
	
Hawthorne
	47%
	69.8%
	
Lowell
	45%
	38.8%
	
Whittier
	41%
	56.0%

15

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY COHORT ANALYSIS GRADES 5 - 8

Percentage Greater than or Equal to Level 4

16

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY COHORT ANALYSIS GRADES 9 - 11

Percentage Greater than or Equal to Level 4

17

MATHEMATICS COHORT ANALYSIS GRADES 3 - 4

Percentage Greater than or Equal to Level 4

School
	Grade 3 (2015) Math
	Grade 4 (2016) Math
	
Hawthorne
	55%
	48.3%
	
Lowell
	47%
	38.8%
	
Whittier
	46%
	40.5%

18

MATHEMATICS COHORT ANALYSIS GRADES 5 - 8

Percentage Greater than or Equal to Level 4

School
	Grade 5 (2015)
	Grade 6 (2016)
	Grade 6 (2015)

42%
	Grade 7 (2016)

37.5%
	Grade 7 (2015)

34%
	Grade 8 (2016)

38.8%
	
BFMS
	42%
	38.1%
					
TJMS
	47%
	43.0%
	41%
	37.0%
	37%
	29.0%

19

MATHEMATICS COHORT ANALYSIS
ALGEBRA I, GEOMETRY AND ALGEBRA II

Percentage Greater than or Equal to Level 4

School
	Algebra I (2015)
	Algebra I (2016)
	Algebra II (2015)
	Algebra II (2016)
	Geometry (2015)
	Geometry (2016)

THS
	32.0%
	40.4%
	13.3%
	16.0%
	13.4%
	15.2%

20

COMPARISON OF

NUMBER OF STUDENTS WHO REFUSED TESTING FOR PARCC SPRING 2015 AND SPRING 2016 GRADES 3 AND 4

School
	Grade
	Students Who Refused Testing
	
		2015 #
	2015 %
	2016 #
	2016 %
	
Hawthorne
	3
	0
	0
	1
	1.25%
	
	4
	0
	0
	1
	1.12%
	
Lowell
	3
	0
	0
	1
	1.49%
	
	4
	1
	1.47%
	1
	1.39%
	
Whittier
	3
	6
	7.5%
	6
	6.1%
	
	4
	3
	3.12%
	4
	4.5%

21

COMPARISON OF

NUMBER OF STUDENTS WHO REFUSED TESTING FOR PARCC SPRING 2015 AND SPRING 2016 GRADES 5 - 8

School
	Grade
	Students Who Refused Testing
	
		2015 #
	2015 %
	2016 #
	2016 %
	
Benjamin Franklin
	5
	7
	5.85%
	8
	6.11%
	
	6
	4
	3.47%
	1
	.80%
	
	7
	5
	4.34%
	9
	7.14%
	
	8
	4
	3.60%
	7
	5.65%
	
Thomas Jefferson
	5
	6
	4.05%
	5
	3.62%
	
	6
	4
	2.85%
	5
	3.65%
	
	7
	4
	3.0%
	4
	3.08%
	
	8
	11
	10.0%
	1
	.73%

22

COMPARISON OF

NUMBER OF STUDENTS WHO REFUSED TESTING FOR PARCC SPRING 2015 AND SPRING 2016 GRADES 9 – 11

School
	Assessment
	Students Who Refused Testing
	
		2015 #
	2015 %
	2016 #
	2016 %
	
Teaneck High School
	English 9
	9
	2.82%
	22
	7.05%
	
	English 10
	33
	11.70%
	17
	5.06%
	
	English 11
	49
	17.94%
	64
	19.28%
	
	Algebra I
	7
	2.43%
	21
	12.1%
	
	Algebra II
	28
	10.37
	51
	29.14%
	
	Geometry
	20
	7.38%
	15
	5.88%

23

QUESTIONS TO GUIDE PARCC DATA REFLECTION

How will we use PARCC data to identify strengths and gaps that exist in curriculum and instruction?

How will we use PARCC data to inform the conversations of our educators?

What can we learn about where additional professional resources are needed to meet the learning needs of all students?

24

PARCC YEAR TWO REFLECTIONS AND CELEBRATIONS

While we are still growing in our understanding of this assessment, we can celebrate the following:

Better understanding of the Common Core State Standards and the content area shifts due to refined conversations, focused department meetings and strategic professional development offerings

Deeper understanding of the PARCC format, questions, task-types and scoring rubrics and are replicating those in our district-made assessments

Revised mathematics guides that meet the rigor of the standards

Heightened focus on the teaching of nonfiction texts and informative writing pieces

Sharpened focus on strategic instructional practices that are matched to the Common Core

Increased collaborative discussions by administrators and teachers regarding student engagement, questioning and assessment

25

NEXT STEPS:

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY

Grades
	
Focus Areas: PARCC Sub-Claims
	
Action Plan
	
Professional Development

3-4
	Reading Informational Text:
	Use information gained from illustrations and the words in a text to demonstrate understandingof the text

Vocabulary Interpretation & Use:
	Demonstrate understanding of word relationships and nuances in word meanings

Writing Conventions:
	Demonstrate full command of the conventions of Standard English consistent with edited writing
		Review current reading resources and consider adopting a new reading program

	Work with Literacy Enrichment Teachers/ Coaches on best practices for reading nonfiction text and understandingvocabulary in context for turn-key grade level trainings

	Revisit protocols for providing meaningful feedback on published writing pieces

	Analyze writing assessment results to ensure that student writing has adequate feedback
		Department meetings based on the District Evidence Statement Analysis

	Professional development: Nonfiction Reading Comprehension Strategies & Text Structures

	Professional development: Benchmark Assessments & EdConnect (Social Studies)

26

NEXT STEPS:

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY

Grades
	
Focus Areas: PARCC Sub-Claims
	
Action Plan
	
Professional Development

5-6
	Reading Informational Text:
•	Compare and contrast the overall structure (e.g., chronology, comparison, cause/effect, problem/solution) of events, ideas, concepts, or information in two or more texts

•	Draw on information from multiple print or digital sources,
demonstrating the ability to locate an answer to a question quickly or to solve a problem efficiently

Vocabulary Interpretation & Use:
•	Demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relationships, and nuances in word meanings
		Adopted a new reading and writing program

	Realigned curriculum documents to focus on academic vocabulary, word study and integrated text sets
	• Department meetings based on the District Evidence Statement Analysis

• Professional development: Differentiated instruction for fifth and sixth grade students

• Professional development: Standards-based assessments

27

NEXT STEPS:

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY

Grades
	
Focus Areas: PARCC Sub-Claims
	
Action Plan
	
Professional Development

7-8
	Reading Informational Text:
	Reading: Science and Technical Subjects (RST)- Determine the meaning of symbols, key terms and other domain-specific words & phrases

Vocabulary Interpretation & Use
	Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text and analyze the impact of specific word choices on meaning and tone, including analogies or allusions to other texts

Writing Conventions:
	Demonstrate full command of the conventions of Standard English consistent with edited writing
		Updated curriculum guide to include a stronger narrative nonfiction unit

	Incorporate online benchmark assessments via EdConnect to monitor student progress
	• Department meetings based on the District Evidence Statement Analysis

• Department meeting: Protocols for providing meaningful feedback on published writing pieces

• Professional development: Research and Educational Technology focused on reading and researching information

28

NEXT STEPS:

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY

Grades
	
Focus Areas: PARCC Sub-Claims
	
Action Plan
	
Professional Development

9-11
	
Reading Informational Text:
	Determine an author's point of view or purpose in a text and analyze how an author uses rhetoric to advance that point of view or purpose

	Determine the central ideas or conclusionsof a text; trace the text's explanationor depiction of a complex process, phenomenon, or concept; provide an accurate summary of the text

Vocabulary Interpretation & Use
	Demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relationships, and nuances in word meanings

Written Expression:
	Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization, and style are appropriate to the task, purpose, and audience
		Updated tenth grade curriculum guide to include texts of diversity and richer selections of informational texts
		Departmentmeetings based on the District Evidence Statement Analysis

	 Professional development: Strategies for teaching nonfiction texts to high school students

29

NEXT STEPS: MATHEMATICS

	

Grades
	
Focus Areas PARCC Sub-Claims
	
Action Plan
	
Professional Development

3-4
		Number and Operation-Fractions

	Mathematical Reasoning and Modeling
		PARCC Evidence Statement Analysis

	SGO Assessment Revision K-4

	Fraction unit revision

	Focus on pedagogical practice for fractions
		Department meetings based on the District Evidence Statement Analysis

	Professional Development: SGO

	Assessment-Task Rigor

	METs attend and turnkey content specific pedagogical practices

30

NEXT STEPS: MATHEMATICS

Grades
	
Focus Areas: PARCC Sub-Claims
	
Action Plan
	
Professional Development

5
		Number and Operation-Base Ten

	Number and Operation-Fractions

	Mathematical Reasoning and Modeling
	•	PARCC Evidence Statement Analysis

•	Analyze the claim structures for modeling and reasoning to address challenges in problem solving

•	Implement Moby Max, an online learning platform designed to assess and create personalized learn paths for students
	• Department meetings based on the District Evidence Statement Analysis

• Professional Development: Problem Solving for Struggling Learners

6
		Expressions and Equations

	Mathematical Reasoning and Modeling
		PARCC Evidence Statement Analysis

	Focus on content-specific pedagogy, including working with integers and algebraic equations

	Implement Moby Max, an online learning platform designed to assess and create personalized learn paths for students
	• Department meetings based on the District Evidence Statement Analysis

• Professional Development: Problem Solving for Struggling Learners

• Professional Development: Developing Algebraic Thinking	31

NEXT STEPS: MATHEMATICS

	

Grades
	
Focus Areas PARCC Sub-Claims
	
Action Plan
	
Professional Development

7-8
		Mathematical Reasoning and Modeling
		PARCC Evidence Statement Analysis

	Implement Moby Max, an online learning platform designed to assess and create personalized learn paths for students
		Department meetings based on the District Evidence Statement Analysis

	Professional Development: Problem Solving for Struggling Learners

	Professional Development: Differentiated Instruction

32

NEXT STEPS: MATHEMATICS

				
Grades
	Focus Areas PARCC Sub-Claims
	Action Plan
	Professional Development
	
Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II
		Mathematical Reasoning and Modeling
		PARCC Evidence Statement Analysis

	Explore PARCC sample items and student performance expectations

	Algebra I everyday for all students
		Department meetings based on the District Evidence Statement Analysis

	Professional Development: Differentiated Instruction - Strategies for Working with Struggling Learners

•	Professional Development: Analyze benchmark assessment data to brainstorm interventions and make adjustments to instruction

33

RESOURCES FOR PARENTS

Information on the new 2015-16 PARCC Student Reports: www.state.nj.us/education/assessment/parcc/scores/

Understanding the student score reports (with translations): understandthescore.org/

34

NJASK SCIENCE: GRADES 4 AND 8

2014-2016

35

TEANECK

COMPARED

4TH GRADE SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT 2014 - 2016
TO NJ AND DISTRICT FACTOR GROUP

36

TEANECK 8TH GRADE SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT 2014 - 2016
COMPARED TO NJ AND DISTRICT FACTOR GROUP

37

NJ BIOLOGY COMPETENCY

2013-2016

38

NJ BIOLOGY COMPETENCY TEST RESULTS 2013 - 2016
COMPARED TO STATE AND DFG

39

REFLECTIONS AND NEXT STEPS SCIENCE

2016 Summer Curriculum Revision: Environmental Science, Physics, Physical Science, Science 6, Science 7 and Science 8

2016-2017 Professional Development Focus:

Grades 6-12: New Jersey Student Learning Standards for Science(NJSLS-S), and Science and Engineering Practices

Grades K-5: Introduction of the NJSLS–S, Three-Dimensional Learning and 5E Instructional Model

Implementation of ScienceFusion (new instructional resource) in grades 6-8 during the 2016-2017 school year.

40