New Jersey Student Learning Assessment (NJSLA) Results: Spring 2019 Administration

Measuring College and Career Readiness

Teaneck Public Schools November 6, 2019

1

New Jersey Student Learning Assessment

Data Sets

• Number of Students Tested • Notable Achievements
• District Performance vs. State Performance • District Percentages
• Grade Level Outcomes • Subgroup Data
• Performance Data by School • Next Steps

2

Glossary of Terms

1.	NJSLA: New Jersey Student Learning Assessment - replaced the PARCC

1.	Levels of Proficiency
▪	Level 5: Exceeded Expectations ▪	Level 4: Met Expectations
▪	Level 3: Approached Expectations ▪	Level 2: Partially Met Expectations
▪	Level 1: Did Not Yet Meet Expectations

1.	IEP or Individualized Education Plans: The Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) is a plan or program developed to ensure that a child who has a disability identified under the law and is attending an elementary or secondary educational institution receives specialized instruction and related services.

3
1.	District Evidence Tables - Evidence Statement Tables and Evidence Statements describe the knowledge and skills that an assessment item or a task elicits from students. These are aligned directly to the New Jersey Student Learning Standards.

English/ Language Arts

4

New Jersey Student Learning Assessment English/ Language Arts

The NJSLA-ELA measures student proficiency with grade level skills, knowledge and concepts that are critical to college and career readiness.
• On each assessment, students read and analyze passages from authentic fiction and nonfiction texts.
• The test can also include multimedia stimuli such as video or audio.

• The NJSLA-ELA assessments emphasize the importance of close reading, synthesizing ideas within and across texts, determining the meaning of words and phrases in context and writing at every grade.

5

Comparison of Teaneck Public Schools Number of Students Tested
Spring 2018 & Spring 2019 NJSLA Administrations English Language Arts

Grade

3
	Students Tested 2019
	Students Tested 2018
	Difference between number of students tested in 2018 and 2019
	
	234
	226
	+8
	
4
	230
	211
	+19
	
5
	225
	246
	-21
	
6
	256
	246
	+10
	
7
	258
	273
	-15
	
8
	269
	262
	+7
	
9
	288
	295
	-7
	
10
	291
	269
	+22
	
Total
	2051
	2028
	+23

** NJSLA 2018-2019 assessments were optional for 11th Grade students.
Note: “Students Tested” represents individual valid test scores for English Language Arts.

6

Notable English/

Achievements Language Arts

◼	In 2019, The District outperformed the State in grades three, four, seven, eight, nine and ten

◼	There was upward trend of achievement for our students with IEPs in the following grades: ○	5.10 percentage point increase in third grade
○	9.3 percentage point increase in fourth grade ○	3.3 percentage point increase in sixth grade ○	1 percentage point increase in seventh grade
○	9.40 percentage point increase in eighth grade ○	3.20 percentage point increase in ninth grade

◼	Steady increase in students exceeding expectations (Level 5) in the following grades: ○	Fourth grade
○	Seventh grade ○	Ninth grade
○	Tenth grade

7

Comparison of Teaneck Public Schools Spring 2019 NJSLA Administrations English Language Arts to New Jersey Percentages for 2019

Grade

3
	Level 1, District
	Level 1, State
	Level 2, District
	Level 2, State
	Level 3, District
	Level 3, State
	Level 4, District
	Level 4, State
	Level 5, District
	Level 5, State
	
	9.4%
	14.0%
	12.8%
	14.4%
	23.9%
	21.4%
	44.9%
	42.8%
	9.0%
	7.4%
	
4
	2.6%
	8.6%
	10.9%
	12.6%
	19.6%
	21.4%
	43.5%
	39.1%
	23.5%
	18.3%
	
5
	8.4%
	7.4%
	15.1%
	12.5%
	25.8%
	22.2%
	45.3%
	45.6%
	5.3%
	12.3%
	
6
	7.8%
	7.3%
	13.7%
	12.6%
	29.3%
	23.9%
	35.9%
	40.9%
	13.3%
	15.2%
	
7
	10.1%
	8.9%
	9.3%
	10.5%
	19.4%
	17.8%
	34.1%
	33.1%
	27.1%
	29.7%
	
8
	5.6%
	9.2%
	9.3%
	10.3%
	16.4%
	17.7%
	50.9%
	38.0%
	17.8%
	24.9%
	
9
	7.6%
	11.3%
	14.2%
	11.8%
	19.4%
	21.1%
	43.4%
	36.7%
	15.3%
	19.2%
	
10
	18.6%
	14.3%
	13.4%
	10.9%
	13.1%
	15.9%
	34.4%
	33.4%
	20.6%
	25.5%

*Grade 11 does not include students who took an AP/IB test.
** NJSLA 2018-2019 assessments were optional for 11th Grade students, state results do not include Grade 11 results.
Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.	8

Comparison of Teaneck Public Schools Spring 2017, Spring 2018 & Spring 2019 NJSLA Administrations English Language Arts - Percentages

Grade

3

Level 1 2017

Level 1 2018

Level 1 2019

Level 2 2017

Level 2 2018

Level 2 2019

Level 3 2017

Level 3 2018

Level 3 2019

Level 4 2017

Level 4 2018

Level 4 2019

Level 5 2017

Level 5 2018

Level 5 2019

8%
	
6.6%
	
9.4%
	
13%
	
14.6%
	
12.8%
	
25%
	
23.9%
	
23.9%
	
43%
	
45.6%
	
44.9%
	
11%
	
9.3%
	
9.0%

4
	
5%
	
2.8%
	
2.6%
	
15%
	
13.3%
	
10.9%
	
27%
	
18%
	
19.6%
	
40%
	
47.4%
	
43.5%
	
12%
	
18.5%	23.5%

5
	
6%
	
6.1%
	
8.4%
	
15%
	
13.4%
	
15.1%
	
28%
	
30.5%
	
25.8%
	
44%
	
45.5%
	
45.3%
	
8%
	
4.5%
	
5.3%

6
	
5%
	
8.9%
	
7.8%
	
16%
	
14.6%
	
13.7%
	
29%
	
21.1%
	
29.3%
	
43%
	
41.5%
	
35.9%
	
8%
	
13.8%
	
13.3%

7
	
8%
	
6.6%
	
10.1%
	
9%
	
8.4%
	
9.3%
	
23%
	
22%
	
19.4%
	
42%
	
40.7%
	
34.1%
	
18%
	
22.3%
	
27.1%

8
	
8%
	
5.3%
	
5.6%
	
12%
	
5.7%
	
9.3%
	
19%
	
18.7%
	
16.4%
	
43%
	
52.7%
	
50.9%
	
18%
	
17.6%
	
17.8%

9
	
10%
	
8.5%
	
7.6%
	
8%
	
11.2%
	
14.2%
	
22%
	
20%
	
19.4%
	
47%
	
48.1%
	
43.4%
	
12%
	
12.2%
	
15.3%

10
	
16%
	
13.8%
	
18.6%
	
11%
	
12.3%
	
13.4%
	
16%
	
16.4%
	
13.1%
	
38%
	
39.8%
	
34.4%
	
19%
	
17.8%
	
20.6%

9
*Grade 11 test was optional for 2018-2019 assessment year. **Level 4 and Level 5 is an indication a student is on pace to be college and career ready. Notes: Data shown is preliminary. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Teaneck Public Schools
2019 Spring NJSLA School- & Grade-Level Outcomes English Language Arts Grade 3 and 4 Percentages

ELA03

Hawthorne
	
Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)
	
Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)
	
Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
	
Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
	
Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
	
% of students at Level 4 and 5
	
		10.8%
	10.8%
	25.7%
	41.9%
	10.8%
	52.7%
	
	Lowell
	2.6%
	10.5%
	22.4%
	52.6%
	11.8%
	64.5%
	
	Whittier
	14.3%
	16.7%
	23.8%
	40.5%
	4.8%
	45.2%

	

ELA04

Hawthorne
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)
	
Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
	
Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
	
Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
	
% of students at Level 4 and 5
	
		3.6%
	14.3%
	23.8%
	45.2%
	13.1%
	58.3%
	
	Lowell
	0.0%
	5.8%
	17.4%
	42.0%
	34.8%
	76.8%
	
	Whittier
	3.9%
	11.7%
	16.9%
	42.9%
	24.7%
	67.5%

10

Teaneck Public Schools
2019 Spring NJSLA School- & Grade-Level Outcomes English Language Arts Grade 5 and 6 Percentages

ELA05

Thomas Jefferson
	
Not Yet Meeting Expectations (% Level 1)
	
Partially Meeting Expectations (% Level 2)
	
Approaching Expectations
(% Level 3)
	
Meeting Expectations
(% Level 4)
	
Exceeding Expectations
(% Level 5)
	
% of students at Level 4 and 5
	
	9.4%
	15.4%
	24.8%
	47.9%
	2.6%
	50.4%
	
Benjamin Franklin
	7.4%
	14.8%
	26.9%
	42.6%
	8.3%
	50.9%

ELA06

Thomas Jefferson
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (% Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (% Level 2)
	
Approaching Expectations
(% Level 3)
	
Meeting Expectations
(% Level 4)
	
Exceeding Expectations
(% Level 5)
	% of students at Level 4 and 5
	
	3.9%
	15.6%
	26.6%
	39.8%
	14.1%
	53.9%
	
Benjamin Franklin
	11.7%
	11.7%
	32.0%
	32.0%
	12.5%
	44.5%

11

Teaneck Public Schools
2019 Spring NJSLA School- & Grade-Level Outcomes English Language Arts Grade 7 and 8 Percentages

ELA07

Thomas Jefferson
	
Not Yet Meeting Expectations (% Level 1)
	
Partially Meeting Expectations (% Level 2)
	
Approaching Expectations
(% Level 3)
	
Meeting Expectations
(% Level 4)
	
Exceeding Expectations
(% Level 5)
	
% of students at Level 4 and 5
	
	9.6%
	12.6%
	24.4%
	30.4%
	23.0%
	53.3%
	
Benjamin Franklin
	10.6%
	5.7%
	13.8%
	38.2%
	31.7%
	69.9%

ELA08

Thomas Jefferson
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (% Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (% Level 2)
	
Approaching Expectations
(% Level 3)
	
Meeting Expectations
(% Level 4)
	
Exceeding Expectations
(% Level 5)
	% of students at Level 4 and 5
	
	4.6%
	9.9%
	16.0%
	51.9%
	17.6%
	69.5%
	
Benjamin Franklin
	6.5%
	8.7%
	16.7%
	50.0%
	18.1%
	68.1%

12

Teaneck Public Schools
2019 Spring NJSLA School- & Grade-Level Outcomes English Language Arts Grades 9 and 10 Percentages

ELA09

Teaneck High School
	
Not Yet Meeting Expectations (% Level 1)
	
Partially Meeting Expectations (% Level 2)
	
Approaching Expectations
(% Level 3)
	
Meeting Expectations
(% Level 4)
	
Exceeding Expectations
(% Level 5)
	
% of students at Level 4 and 5
	
	7.6%
	14.2%
	19.4%
	43.4%
	15.3%
	58.7%

ELA10

Teaneck High School
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (% Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (% Level 2)
	
Approaching Expectations
(% Level 3)
	
Meeting Expectations
(% Level 4)
	
Exceeding Expectations
(% Level 5)
	% of students at Level 4 and 5
	
	18.6%
	13.4%
	13.1%
	34.4%
	20.6%
	55.0%

13

Comparison of Teaneck Public Schools’ Subgroup
Spring 2018 and Spring 2019 NJSLA Administrations English Language Arts- Grade 3- Percentages

Subgroup
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)
	Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
	Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
	Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
	
Subgroup
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	
Female
	6.9%
	4.7%
	14.5%
	11.2%
	25.2%
	25.2%
	42.7%
	48.6%
	10.7%
	10.3%
	
Male
	6.3%
	13.4%
	14.7%
	14.2%
	22.1%
	22.8%
	49.5%
	41.7%
	7.4%
	7.9%
	
Hispanic or Latino
	8.0%
	9.3%
	13.6%
	12.0%
	23.9%
	23.1%
	48.9%
	46.3%
	5.7%
	9.3%
	
Asian
	3.7%
	9.5%
	14.8%
	9.5%
	18.5%
	23.8%
	48.1%
	47.6%
	14.8%
	9.5%
	
Black or African-American
	6.6%
	6.5%
	18.4%
	14.5%
	27.6%
	30.6%
	34.2%
	43.5%
	13.2%
	4.8%
	
White
	8.0%
	11.8%
	12%
	14.7%
	16%
	14.7%
	60%
	41.2%
	4%
	17.6%
	
Non Economic Disadvantaged
	5.7%
	9.2%
	12.1%
	11.5%
	24.3%
	20%
	47.9%
	46.9%
	10%
	12.3%
	
Economic Disadvantaged
	8.1%
	9.6%
	18.6%
	14.4%
	23.3%
	28.8%
	41.9%
	42.3%
	8.1%
	4.8%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP Yes
	13.5%
	25.4%
	32.7%
	20.3%
	25%
	20.3%
	25%
	28.8%
	3.8%
	5.1%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP No
	4.6%
	4.0%
	9.2%
	10.3%
	23.6%
	25.1%
	51.7%
	50.3%
	10.9%
	10.3%

14

Comparison of Teaneck Public Schools’ Subgroup
Spring 2018 and Spring 2019 NJSLA Administrations English Language Arts- Grade 4- Percentages

Subgroup
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)
	Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
	Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
	Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
	
Subgroup
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	
Female
	1.9%
	1.5%
	11.3%
	10.6%
	13.2%
	18.9%
	49.1%
	44.7%
	24.5%
	24.2%
	
Male
	3.8%
	4.1%
	15.2%
	11.2%
	22.9%
	20.4%
	45.7%
	41.8%
	12.4%
	22.4%
	
Hispanic or Latino
	2.3%
	2.2%
	18.2%
	7.9%
	20.5%
	18%
	50%
	55.1%
	9.1%
	16.9%
	
Asian
	0%
	0%
	0%
	3.7%
	20%
	22.2%
	52%
	51.9%
	28%
	22.2%
	
Black or African-American
	2.9%
	4.2%
	14.3%
	13.9%
	17.1%
	23.6%
	42.9%
	31.9%
	22.9%
	26.4%
	
White
	4.5%
	0%
	9.1%
	20%
	13.6%
	20%
	54.5%
	23.3%
	18.2%
	36.7%
	
Non Economic Disadvantaged
	3.1%
	.7%
	7.8%
	7.4%
	16.3%
	18.8%
	48.1%
	47.7%
	24.8%
	25.5%
	
Economic Disadvantaged
	2.4%
	6.2%
	22%
	17.3%
	20.7%
	21%
	46.3%
	35.8%
	8.5%
	19.8%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP Yes
	9.8%
	6.8%
	33.3%
	23.7%
	25.5%
	28.8%
	31.4%
	32.2%
	0%
	8.5%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP No
	.6%
	1.2%
	6.9%
	6.4%
	15.6%
	16.4%
	52.5%
	47.4%
	24.4%
	28.7%

15

Comparison of Teaneck Public Schools’ Subgroup
Spring 2018 and Spring 2019 NJSLA Administrations English Language Arts- Grade 5- Percentages

Subgroup
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)
	Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
	Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
	Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
	
Subgroup
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	
Female
	7.6%
	4.4%
	10.1%
	16.8%
	22.7%
	22.1%
	54.6%
	47.8%
	5%
	8.8%
	
Male
	4.7%
	12.5%
	16.5%
	13.4%
	37.8%
	29.5%
	37%
	42.9%
	3.9%
	1.8%
	
Hispanic or Latino
	2.1%
	8.6%
	15.5%
	17.2%
	33%
	31.2%
	45.4%
	37.6%
	4.1%
	5.4%
	
Asian
	0%
	0%
	3.8%
	4.2%
	23.1%
	25%
	57.7%
	62.5%
	15.4%
	8.3%
	
Black or African-American
	8.9%
	9.5%
	16.7%
	17.6%
	32.2%
	23%
	40%
	47.3%
	2.2%
	2.7%
	
White
	7.7%
	8%
	7.7%
	12%
	23.1%
	24%
	57.7%
	48%
	3.8%
	8%
	
Non Economic Disadvantaged
	4.3%
	7.6%
	10.1%
	10.4%
	34.1%
	24.3%
	44.2%
	50.7%
	7.2%
	6.9%
	
Economic Disadvantaged
	8.3%
	9.9%
	17.6%
	23.5%
	25.9%
	28.4%
	47.2%
	35.8%
	.9%
	2.5%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP Yes
	20.3%
	28.3%
	27.1%
	24.5%
	30.5%
	26.4%
	18.6%
	18.9%
	3.4%
	1.9%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP No
	1.6%
	2.3%
	9.1%
	12.2%
	30.5%
	25.6%
	54%
	53.5%
	4.8%
	6.4%

16

Comparison of Teaneck Public Schools’ Subgroup
Spring 2018 and Spring 2019 NJSLA Administrations English Language Arts- Grade 6- Percentages

Subgroup
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)
	Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
	Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
	Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
	
Subgroup
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	
Female
	6.3%
	4.3%
	4%
	12.8%
	17.5%
	28.2%
	51.6%
	40.2%
	20.6%
	14.5%
	
Male
	11.7%
	10.8%
	25.8%
	14.4%
	25%
	30.2%
	30.8%
	32.4%
	6.7%
	12.2%
	
Hispanic or Latino
	12.5%
	4%
	10.2%
	10.9%
	25%
	33.7%
	43.2%
	43.6%
	9.1%
	7.9%
	
Asian
	4.2%
	0%
	0%
	11.1%
	12.5%
	14.8%
	37.5%
	37%
	45.8%
	37%
	
Black or African-American
	9.7%
	13.8%
	22.6%
	16%
	25.8%
	34%
	35.5%
	26.6%
	6.5%
	9.6%
	
White
	2.9%
	10.7%
	14.7%
	14.3%
	8.8%
	14.3%
	50%
	39.3%
	23.5%
	21.4%
	
Non Economic Disadvantaged
	4.9%
	6.6%
	9.2%
	13.2%
	17.6%
	24.5%
	47.9%
	38.4%
	20.4%
	17.2%
	
Economic Disadvantaged
	14.4%
	9.5%
	22.1%
	14.3%
	26%
	36.2%
	32.7%
	32.4%
	4.8%
	7.6%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP Yes
	30.4%
	21.1%
	30.4%
	22.8%
	25%
	38.6%
	12.5%
	12.3%
	1.8%
	5.3%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP No
	2.6%
	4%
	10%
	11.1%
	20%
	26.6%
	50%
	42.7%
	17.4%
	15.6%

17

Comparison of Teaneck Public Schools’ Subgroup
Spring 2018 and Spring 2019 NJSLA Administrations English Language Arts- Grade 7- Percentages

Subgroup	Not Yet Meeting Expectations
(Level 1)

Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)

Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)

Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)

Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)

Subgroup	2018 Female                             1.5%

Male	11.8%

Hispanic or Latino	6.3%

Asian	2.7%

Black or African-American	8.7%

White	7.1%

Non Economic Disadvantaged	6.9%

Economic Disadvantaged	6.1%

Students With	24.2% Disabilities-IEP Yes

Students With Disabilities-IEP	1% No

2019        2018 9.2%           5.8%

11%	11%

9.6%	6.3%

4.3%	2.7%

11.5%	13.5%

10.8%	0%

9.9%	7.5%

10.4%	9.6%

28.6%	22.7%

5%	3.9%

2019         2018        2019 .8%            14.6%           13%

18.1%	29.4%	26%

9.6%	22.9%	23.4%

0%	10.8%	13%

12.5%	26%	24%

8.1%	21.4%	2.7%

5.3%	22%	17.8%

15.1%	21.9%	21.7%

26.8%	28.8%	19.6%

4.5%	19.8%	19.3%

2018        2019        2018         2019 49.6%         38.9%         28.5%          38.2%

31.6%	29.1%	16.2%	15.7%

44.8%	38.3%	19.8%	19.1%

43.2%	26.1%	40.5%	56.5%

38.5%	30.2%	13.5%	21.9%

39.3%	37.8%	32.1%	40.5%

38.4%	30.9%	25.2%	36.2%

43.9%	38.7%	18.4%	14.2%

22.7%	16.1%	1.5%	8.9%

46.4%	39.1%	29%	32.2%

18

Comparison of Teaneck Public Schools’ Subgroup
Spring 2018 and Spring 2019 NJSLA Administrations English Language Arts- Grade 8- Percentages

Subgroup	Not Yet Meeting Expectations
(Level 1)

Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)

Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)

Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)

Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)

Subgroup	2018 Female                             4.4%

Male	6.4%

Hispanic or Latino	6.2%

Asian	4.9%

Black or African-American	5.6%

White	3.6%

Non Economic Disadvantaged	4.4%

Economic Disadvantaged	6.9%

Students With	19.1% Disabilities-IEP Yes

Students With Disabilities-IEP	.5% No

2019	2018 .8%            2.9%

10%	8.8%

2.1%	9.3%

7.7%	2.4%

9%	4.4%

3.7%	0%

5.8%	4.4%

5.1%	7.8%

14.9%	19.1%

2.5%	1%

2019         2018        2019 5.4%           12.4%         12.4%

12.9%	25.6%	20%

12.8%	22.7%	17%

0%	14.6%	10.3%

8%	18.9%	21%

11.1%	10.7%	11.1%

7%	18.8%	17%

13.3%	18.6%	15.3%

20.9%	32.4%	25.4%

5.4%	13.9%	13.4%

2018        2019        2018         2019 59.9%         58.1%         20.4%          23.3%

44.8%	44.3%	14.4%	12.9%

49.5%	53.2%	12.4%	14.9%

51.2%	51.3%	26.8%	30.8%

58.9%	47%	12.2%	15%

53.6%	55.6	32.1%	18.5%

50%	49.7%	22.5%	20.5%

56.9%	53.1%	9.8%	13.3%

26.5%	37.3%	2.9%	1.5%

61.9%	55.4%	22.7%	23.3%

19

Comparison of Teaneck Public Schools’ Subgroup
Spring 2018 and Spring 2019 NJSLA Administrations English Language Arts- Grade 9- Percentages

Subgroup
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)
	Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
	Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
	Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
	
Subgroup
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	
Female
	4.6%
	8.6%
	8.6%
	8.6%
	18.5%
	18%
	50.3%
	46%
	17.9%
	18.7%
	
Male
	12.5%
	6.7%
	13.9%
	19.5%
	21.5%
	20.8%
	45.8%
	40.9%
	6.3%
	12.1%
	
Hispanic or Latino
	9%
	8%
	10%
	18.8%
	20%
	22.3%
	51%
	40.2%
	10%
	10.7%
	
Asian
	0%
	2.8%
	2.9%
	8.3%
	8.6%
	27.8%
	62.9%
	30.6%
	25.7%
	30.6%
	
Black or African-American
	11.5%
	10.2%
	14.8%
	13.3%
	26.2%
	19.4%
	39.3%
	46.9%
	8.2%
	10.2%
	
White
	3.3%
	2.8%
	6.7%
	8.3%
	6.7%
	5.6%
	63.3%
	55.6%
	20%
	27.8%
	
Non Economic Disadvantaged
	5.8%
	6.2%
	9.7%
	10.8%
	16.5%
	19.5%
	52.4%
	45.6%
	15.5%
	17.9%
	
Economic Disadvantaged
	14.6%
	10.8%
	14.6%
	21.5%
	28.1%
	19.4%
	38.2%
	38.7%
	4.5%
	9.7%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP Yes
	26%
	26.3%
	24.7%
	34.2%
	31.5%
	18.4%
	17.8%
	18.4%
	0%
	2.6%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP No
	2.7%
	.9%
	6.8%
	7.1%
	16.2%
	19.8%
	58.1%
	52.4%
	16.2%
	19.8%

20

Comparison of Teaneck Public Schools’ Subgroup
Spring 2018 and Spring 2019 NJSLA Administrations English Language Arts- Grade 10- Percentages

Subgroup
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)
	Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
	Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
	Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
	
Subgroup
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	
Female
	11.7%
	13.3%
	10%
	10.5%
	14.2%
	13.3%
	45%
	35%
	19.2%
	28%
	
Male
	15.4%
	23.6%
	14.1%
	16.2%
	18.1%
	12.8%
	35.6%
	33.8%
	16.8%
	13.5%
	
Hispanic or Latino
	11.8%
	15.5%
	12.7%
	13.4%
	15.7%
	15.5%
	41.2%
	42.3%
	18.6%
	13.4%
	
Asian
	13.6%
	3%
	9.1%
	6.1%
	0%
	6.1%
	40.9%
	45.5%
	36.4%
	39.4%
	
Black or African-American
	16.5%
	28.6%
	14.6%
	18.5%
	22.3%
	12.6%
	33%
	24.4%
	13.6%
	16%
	
White
	14.3%
	6.1%
	7.1%
	3%
	10.7%
	9.1%
	50%
	39.4%
	17.9%
	42.4%
	
Non Economic Disadvantaged
	12.1%
	17.6%
	9.6%
	10.4%
	14.1%
	13.1%
	42.9%
	34.8%
	21.2%
	24%
	
Economic Disadvantaged
	18.3%
	21.4%
	19.7%
	22.9%
	22.5%
	12.9%
	31%
	32.9%
	8.5%
	10%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP Yes
	40.9%
	51.4%
	25.8%
	23%
	9.1%
	14.9%
	22.7%
	9.5%
	1.5%
	1.4%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP No
	4.9%
	7.4%
	7.9%
	10.1%
	18.7%
	12.4%
	45.3%
	42.9%
	23.2%
	27.2%

21

Next Steps English/ Language Arts

●	Recommendation 1: Careful itemized review of the District Evidence Statement Tables to ensure aligned, responsive learning opportunities based on areas of strength and areas of support (Goal 1: Academic Programming)

●	Recommendation 2: Continued use of multi-sensory reading instruction in the early grades to improve reading comprehension, vocabulary, phonics, phonemic awareness and spelling (Goal 1: Academic Programming)

●	Recommendation 3: Revisit the Language Arts Literacy support courses at Teaneck High School to provide additional, targeted reading and writing aligned to the New Jersey Student Learning Assessment (Goal 1: Academic Programming)

●	Recommendation 4: Provide professional development through The Institute for Learning to ensure

high-level, rigorous tasks in all grade levels as well as targeted questions which support critical thinking (Goal 1: Academic Programming)

●	Recommendation 5: Ensure that curricula and learning opportunities are personally relevant to students and that students are able to connect meaningfully with the content (Goal 4: Equity and Inclusion)

●	Recommendation 6: Use the levels of proficiency to determine types of and levels of interventions needed. These interventions will include support from reading specialists, after-school and summer program participation, differentiated reading and writing instruction, and individualized support.

22

Mathematics

23

New Jersey Student Learning Assessment Mathematics

The NJSLA-M measures student proficiency with grade or course level skills, knowledge, practices and concepts that are critical to college and career readiness. On each assessment, students will face a mixture of objective items such as:
• assessing content and practice

• constructed-response items requiring the application of grade or course appropriate reasoning and modeling.

24

Comparison of Teaneck Public Schools Number of Students Tested
Spring 2018 & Spring 2019 NJSLA Administrations Mathematics

Grade

3
	Students Tested 2019
	Students Tested 2018
	Difference between number of students tested in 2018 and 2019
	
	234
	226
	+8
	
4
	230
	211
	+19
	
5
	230
	250
	-20
	
6
	260
	249
	+11
	
7
	260
	277
	-17
	
8*
	221
	206
	+15
	
Algebra I*
	299
	311
	-12
	
Algebra II**
	68
	271
	-203
	
Geometry
	263
	253
	+10
	
Total
	2065
	2254
	-189

** NJSLA 2018-2019 assessments were optional for 11th Grade students. The 68 students who tested for Algebra II in 2019 were sophomores who were taking Algebra II. The students tested in 2018 were both sophomores and juniors.
*Some students in grade 8 participated in the Algebra I assessment in place of the 8th grade Math assessment. Thus, Math 8 outcomes are not representative of grade 8 performance as a whole.	25 Notes: “Students Tested” represents individual valid test scores for Mathematics.

Notable Achievements Mathematics

◼	In 2019, The District outperformed the State’s Level 4 achievement in grades four, five, eight and Algebra II

◼	The District also outperformed the State’s Level 5 achievement in grades four, eight, Algebra I an Algebra II
◼	There was an upward trend of achievement for our elementary female students in mathematics
◼	There was an upward trend of achievement for our students with disabilities in grades: ○	1 percentage point increase in third grade
○	17.4 percentage point increase in fourth grade ○	3.3 percentage point increase in sixth grade
○	1.4 percentage point increase in Algebra I

○	47. 9 percentage point increase in Algebra II

◼	Steady increase in students exceeding expectations (Level 5) in the following grades: ○	Four
○	Seven

○	Geometry

○	Algebra II	26

Comparison of Teaneck Public Schools Spring 2019 NJSLA Administrations
Mathematics to New Jersey - Percentages for 2019

Grade

3
	Level 1, District
	Level 1, State
	Level 2, District
	Level 2, State
	Level 3, District
	Level 3, State
	Level 4, District
	Level 4, State
	Level 5, District
	Level 5, State
	
	6.4
	8.0
	13.2
	13.9
	25.6
	23.0
	41.9
	41.2
	12.8
	13.9
	
4
	3.0
	8.6
	14.3
	14.7
	28.7
	25.7
	46.1
	43.3
	7.8
	7.7
	
5
	3.9
	6.4
	23.5
	20.9
	27.4
	25.8
	36.1
	35.8
	9.1
	11.0
	
6
	9.6
	9.6
	28.8
	22.5
	27.3
	27.4
	28.1
	33.1
	6.2
	7.5
	
7
	8.1
	7.6
	22.3
	21.1
	34.2
	29.3
	28.1
	33.8
	7.3
	8.3
	
8*
	19.9
	23.3
	18.6
	23.1
	23.5
	24.3
	36.2
	28.2
	1.8
	1.1
	
Algebra I**
	11.7
	9.3
	22.4
	26.0
	21.7
	21.4
	36.1
	37.7
	8.0
	5.6
	
Algebra II**
	7.4
	10.6
	8.8
	11.7
	22.1
	21.4
	54.4
	49.7
	7.4
	6.6
	
Geometry**
	8.7
	10.4
	29.7
	24.6
	38.0
	32.8
	20.5
	26.9
	3.0
	5.3

*Some students in grade 8 participated in the Algebra I assessment in place of the 8th grade Math assessment. Thus, Math 8 outcomes are not representative of grade 8 performance as a whole.
** NJSLA 2018-2019 assessments were optional for 11th Grade students, state results do not include Grade 11 results.
Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.	27

Comparison of Teaneck Public Schools Spring 2017, Spring 2018 & Spring 2019 NJSLA Administrations Mathematics - Percentages

Grade

3

4

5

6

7

8*

ALG I***

GEO***

ALG II***

Level 1      Level 1 2017          2018

4%	4.4%

7%	6.2%

5%	3.2%

8%	8.4%

10%	9.7%

20%	17.5%

7%	10.3%

14%	7.5%

39%	36.9%

Level 1      Level 2       Level 2       Level 2       Level 3       Level 3       Level 3       Level 4 2019         2017           2018           2019           2017           2018           2019           2017

6.4%	9%	15%	13.2%	28%	27.4%	25.6%	43%

3.0%	19%	15.6%	14.3%	32%	30.8%	28.7%	37%

3.9%	21%	21.6%	23.5%	37%	28.8%	27.4%	31%

9.6%	33%	26.5%	28.8%	26%	33%	27.3%	25%

8.1%	20%	23.5%	22.3%	35%	30.3%	34.2%	31%

19.9%	18%	15.5%	18.6%	26%	26.2%	23.5%	34%

11.7%	19%	16.7%	22.4%	24%	20.9%	21.7%	43%

8.7%	27%	38.7%	29.7%	38%	35.2%	38.0%	20%

7.4%	28%	24.7%	8.8%	18%	16.6%	22.1%	15%

Level 4       Level 4 2018           2019

37.2%	41.9%

42.7%	46.1%

33.6%	36.1%

24.5%	28.1%

29.6%	28.1%

39.8%	36.2%

42.1%	36.1%

17.8%	20.5%

19.2%	54.4%

Level 5       Level 5       Level 5 2017           2018           2019

16%	15.9%	12.8%

5%	4.7%	7.8%

6%	12.8%	9.1%

8%	7.2%	6.2%

5%	6.9%	7.3%

2%	1%	1.8%

7%	10%	8.0%

1%	0.8%	3.0%

O%	2.6%	7.4%

*Approximately 30,000 New Jersey students in grade 8 participated in the Algebra I assessment. Thus, Math 8 outcomes are not representative of grade 8 performance as a whole. **Level 4 and Level 5 is an indication a student is on pace to be college and career ready.
*** NJSLA 2018-2019 assessments were optional for 11th Grade students	28 Notes: Data shown is preliminary. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. ALG 1 Is Algebra 1; GEO is Geometry; ALG II is Algebra 2.

Teaneck Public Schools
2019 Spring NJSLA School- & Grade-Level Outcomes Mathematics Grades 3 and 4 Percentages

MAT03

Hawthorne
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)
	
Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
	
Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
	
Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
	% of students at Level 4 and 5
	
	5.4%
	14.9%
	17.6%
	43.2%
	18.9%
	62.2%
	
Lowell
	5.3%
	10.5%
	28.9%
	43.4%
	11.8%
	55.3%
	
Whittier
	8.3%
	14.3%
	29.8%
	39.3%
	8.3%
	47.6%

MAT04

Hawthorne
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)
	
Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
	
Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
	
Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
	% of students at Level 4 and 5
	
	6.0%
	16.7%
	31.0%
	34.5%
	11.9%
	46.4%
	
Lowell
	1.4%
	13.0%
	27.5%
	52.2%
	5.8%
	58.0%
	
Whittier
	1.3%
	13.0%
	27.3%
	53.2%
	5.2%
	58.4%

29

Teaneck Public Schools
2019 Spring NJSLA School- & Grade-Level Outcomes Mathematics Grades 5 and 6 Percentages

MAT05

Thomas Jefferson
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)
	
Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
	
Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
	
Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
	% of students at Level 4 and 5
	
	4.2%
	22.7%
	22.7%
	39.5%
	10.9%
	50.4%
	
Benjamin Franklin
	3.6%
	24.3%
	32.4%
	32.4%
	7.2%
	39.6%

MAT06

Thomas Jefferson
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)
	
Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
	
Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
	
Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
	% of students at Level 4 and 5
	
	8.5%
	23.8%
	23.8%
	36.2%
	7.7%
	43.8%
	
Benjamin Franklin
	10.8%
	33.8%
	30.8%
	20.0%
	4.6%
	24.6%

30

Teaneck Public Schools
2019 Spring NJSLA School- & Grade-Level Outcomes Mathematics Grades 7 and 8 Percentages

MAT07

Thomas Jefferson
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)
	
Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
	
Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
	
Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
	% of students at Level 4 and 5
	
	10.2%
	19.7%
	33.6%
	29.9%
	6.6%
	36.5%
	
Benjamin Franklin
	5.7%
	25.2%
	35.0%
	26.0%
	8.1%
	34.1%

MAT08

Thomas Jefferson
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)
	
Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
	
Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
	
Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
	% of students at Level 4 and 5
	
	21.8%
	15.8%
	26.7%
	34.7%
	1.0%
	35.6%
	
Benjamin Franklin
	18.3%
	20.8%
	20.8%
	37.5%
	2.5%
	40.0%

31

Teaneck Public Schools
2019 Spring NJSLA School- & Grade-Level Outcomes Mathematics High School Percentages

Algebra I

Teaneck High School
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)
	
Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
	
Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
	
Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
	% of students at Level 4 and 5
	
	14%
	26.8%
	26%
	32.4%
	8%
	33.2%

Algebra II

Teaneck High School
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)
	
Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
	
Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
	
Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
	% of students at Level 4 and 5
	
	7.4%
	8.8%
	22.1%
	54.4%
	7.4%
	61.8%

Geometry

Teaneck High School
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)
	
Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
	
Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
	
Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
	% of students at Level 4 and 5
	
	8.7%
	29.7%
	38%
	20.5%
	3%
	23.6%

32

Comparison of Teaneck Public Schools’ Subgroup
Spring 2018 and Spring 2019 NJSLA Administrations Mathematics- Grade 3- Percentages

Subgroup
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)
	Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
	Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
	Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
	
Subgroup
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	
Female
	6.1%
	5.6%
	17.6%
	14%
	33.6%
	29.9%
	29.8%
	43%
	13%
	7.5%
	
Male
	2.1%
	7.1%
	11.6%
	12.6%
	18.9%
	22%
	47.4%
	40.9%
	20%
	17.3%
	
Hispanic or Latino
	4.5%
	3.7%
	12.5%
	16.7%
	33%
	21.3%
	40.9%
	47.2%
	9.1%
	11.1%
	
Asian
	3.7%
	9.5%
	3.7%
	4.8%
	18.5%
	14.3%
	44.4%
	52.4%
	29.6%
	19%
	
Black or African-American
	3.9%
	4.8%
	21.1%
	12.9%
	27.6%
	41.9%
	32.9%
	33.9%
	14.5%
	6.5%
	
White
	8%
	11.8%
	16%
	8.8%
	16%
	14.7%
	32%
	38.2%
	28%
	26.5%
	
Non Economic Disadvantaged
	5%
	6.9%
	12.9%
	9.2%
	24.3%
	21.5%
	39.3%
	45.4%
	18.6%
	16.9%
	
Economic Disadvantaged
	3.5%
	5.8%
	18.6%
	18.3%
	32.6%
	30.8%
	33.7%
	37.5%
	11.6%
	7.7%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP Yes
	5.8%
	13.6%
	30.8%
	28.8%
	26.9%
	25.4%
	25%
	23.7%
	11.5%
	8.5%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP No
	4%
	4%
	10.3%
	8%
	27.6%
	25.7%
	40.8%
	48%
	17.2%
	14.3%

33

Comparison of Teaneck Public Schools’ Subgroup
Spring 2018 and Spring 2019 NJSLA Administrations Mathematics- Grade 4- Percentages

Subgroup
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)
	Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
	Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
	Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
	
Subgroup
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	
Female
	3.8%
	3%
	17%
	13.6%
	31.1%
	33.3%
	41.5%
	43.9%
	6.6%
	6.1%
	
Male
	8.6%
	3.1%
	14.3%
	15.3%
	30.5%
	22.4%
	43.8%
	49%
	2.9%
	10.2%
	
Hispanic or Latino
	8%
	3.4%
	20.5%
	10.1%
	30.7%
	27%
	40.9%
	55.1%
	0%
	4.5%
	
Asian
	0%
	3.7%
	4%
	3.7%
	28.0%
	25.9%
	64%
	51.9%
	4%
	14.8%
	
Black or African-American
	5.7%
	4.2%
	15.7%
	25%
	34.3%
	29.2%
	37.1%
	33.3%
	7.1%
	8.3%
	
White
	9.1%
	0%
	9.1%
	13.3%
	22.7%
	26.7%
	40.9%
	50%
	18.2%
	10%
	
Non Economic Disadvantaged
	3.1%
	2%
	10.9%
	12.1%
	29.5%
	30.2%
	50.4%
	45.6%
	6.2%
	10.1%
	
Economic Disadvantaged
	11%
	4.9%
	23.2%
	18.5%
	32.9%
	25.9%
	30.5%
	46.9%
	2.4%
	3.7%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP Yes
	17.6%
	5.1%
	45.1%
	32.2%
	15.7%
	23.7%
	19.6%
	37.3%
	2%
	1.7%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP No
	2.5%
	2.3%
	6.3%
	8.2%
	35.6%
	30.4%
	50%
	49.1%
	5.6%
	9.9%

34

Comparison of Teaneck Public Schools’ Subgroup
Spring 2018 and Spring 2019 NJSLA Administrations Mathematics- Grade 5- Percentages

Subgroup
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)
	Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
	Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
	Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
	
Subgroup
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	
Female
	1.6%
	2.6%
	22.1%
	21.9%
	31.1%
	28.1%
	36.9%
	34.2%
	8.2%
	13.2%
	
Male
	4.7%
	5.2%
	21.1%
	25%
	26.6%
	26.7%
	30.5%
	37.9%
	17.2%
	5.2%
	
Hispanic or Latino
	4%
	3.2%
	21.2%
	34.7%
	29.3%
	21.1%
	34.3%
	37.9%
	11.1%
	3.2%
	
Asian
	0%
	3.8%
	3.8%
	0%
	11.5%
	26.9%
	50%
	57.7%
	34.6%
	11.5%
	
Black or African-American
	2.2%
	4.1%
	30%
	24.3%
	37.8%
	36.5%
	23.3%
	24.3%
	6.7%
	10.8%
	
White
	3.7%
	7.7%
	7.4%
	3.8%
	14.8%
	23.1%
	51.9%
	46.2%
	22.2%
	19.2%
	
Non Economic Disadvantaged
	2.9%
	4.1%
	17.3%
	17.6%
	25.2%
	25%
	39.6%
	41.2%
	15.1%
	12.2%
	
Economic Disadvantaged
	3.6%
	3.7%
	27%
	34.1%
	33.3%
	31.7%
	26.1%
	26.8%
	9.9%
	3.7%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP Yes
	3.3%
	3.8%
	43.3%
	47.2%
	31.7%
	26.4%
	11.7%
	20.8%
	10%
	1.9%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP No
	3.2%
	4%
	14.7%
	16.4%
	27.9%
	27.7%
	40.5%
	40.7%
	13.7%
	11.3%

35

Comparison of Teaneck Public Schools’ Subgroup
Spring 2018 and Spring 2019 NJSLA Administrations Mathematics- Grade 6- Percentages

Subgroup
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)
	Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
	Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
	Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
	
Subgroup
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	
Female
	6.3%
	10.9%
	21.3%
	24.4%
	37%
	31.1%
	26.8%
	26.9%
	8.7%
	6.7%
	
Male
	10.7%
	8.5%
	32%
	32.6%
	29.5%
	24.1%
	22.1%
	29.1%
	5.7%
	5.7%
	
Hispanic or Latino
	11.1%
	6.7%
	28.9%
	28.6%
	35.6%
	28.6%
	22.2%
	31.4%
	2.2%
	4.8%
	
Asian
	0%
	0%
	8%
	18.5%
	32%
	14.8%
	16%
	40.7%
	44%
	25.9%
	
Black or African-American
	10.8%
	16%
	33.3%
	35.1%
	32.3%
	31.9%
	21.5%
	16%
	2.2%
	1.1%
	
White
	2.9%
	7.1%
	17.6%
	17.9%
	29.4%
	17.9%
	41.2%
	46.4%
	8.8%
	10.7%
	
Non Economic Disadvantaged
	6.3%
	7.9%
	15.4%
	22.4%
	37.1%
	27.6%
	30.1%
	33.6%
	11.2%
	8.6%
	
Economic Disadvantaged
	11.3%
	12%
	41.5%
	38%
	28.3%
	26.9%
	17%
	20.4%
	1.9%
	2.8%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP Yes
	19.6%
	17.5%
	53.6%
	45.6%
	16.1%
	22.8%
	8.9%
	10.5%
	1.8%
	3.5%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP No
	5.2%
	7.4%
	18.7%
	24.1%
	38.3%
	28.6%
	29%
	33%
	8/8%
	6.9%

36

Comparison of Teaneck Public Schools’ Subgroup
Spring 2018 and Spring 2019 NJSLA Administrations Mathematics- Grade 7- Percentages

Subgroup
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)
	Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
	Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
	Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
	
Subgroup
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	
Female
	5.1%
	8.4%
	28.3%
	20.6%
	31.9%
	29.8%
	26.8%
	32.8%
	8%
	8.4%
	
Male
	14.4%
	7.8%
	18.7%
	24%
	28.8%
	38.8%
	32.4%
	23.3%
	5.8%
	6.2%
	
Hispanic or Latino
	10.2%
	13.7%
	20.4%
	20%
	34.7%
	33.7%
	29.6%
	30.5%
	5.1%
	2.1%
	
Asian
	5.1%
	0%
	7.7%
	4.3%
	33.3%
	26.1%
	35.9%
	30.4%
	17.9%
	39.1%
	
Black or African-American
	12.5%
	6.2%
	32.7%
	32%
	29.8%
	39.2%
	21.2%
	19.6%
	3.8%
	3.1%
	
White
	7.1%
	5.4%
	14.3%
	16.2%
	17.9%
	24.3%
	50%
	40.5%
	10.7%
	13.5%
	
Non Economic Disadvantaged
	9.9%
	5.8%
	22.8%
	20.1%
	27.2%
	31.8%
	30.9%
	31.2%
	9.3%
	11%
	
Economic Disadvantaged
	9.6%
	11.3%
	24.3%
	25.5%
	34.8%
	37.7%
	27.8%
	23.6%
	3.5%
	1.9%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP Yes
	31.8%
	15.8%
	40.9%
	42.1%
	15.2%
	29.8%
	12.1%
	10.5%
	0%
	1.8%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP No
	2.8%
	5.9%
	18%
	16.7%
	35.1%
	35.5%
	35.1%
	33%
	9%
	8.9%

37

Comparison of Teaneck Public Schools’ Subgroup
Spring 2018 and Spring 2019 NJSLA Administrations Mathematics- Grade 8- Percentages

Subgroup
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)
	Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
	Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
	Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
	
Subgroup
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	
Female
	17.6%
	15.5%
	11.1%
	20.9%
	22.2%
	22.7%
	48.1%
	40%
	.9%
	.9%
	
Male
	17.3%
	24.3%
	20.4%
	16.2%
	30.6%
	24.3%
	30.6%
	32.4%
	1.0%
	2.7%
	
Hispanic or Latino
	22.4%
	17.1%
	16.5%
	20.7%
	25.9%
	19.5%
	35.3%
	40.2%
	0%
	2.4%
	
Asian
	13%
	14.8%
	13%
	7.4%
	21.7%
	14.8%
	43.5%
	59.3%
	8.7%
	3.7%
	
Black or African-American
	14.7%
	23.9%
	16%
	22.7%
	29.3%
	28.4%
	40%
	25%
	0%
	0%
	
White
	15.8%
	20%
	10.5%
	6.7%
	15.8%
	33.3%
	57.9%
	33.3%
	0%
	6.7%
	
Non Economic Disadvantaged
	15.7%
	18.8%
	13.9%
	16.5%
	32.2%
	25.6%
	38.3%
	37.6%
	0%
	1.5%
	
Economic Disadvantaged
	19.8%
	21.6%
	17.6%
	21.6%
	18.7%
	20.5%
	41.8%
	34.1%
	2.2%
	2.3%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP Yes
	47%
	40%
	19.7%
	29.2%
	19.7%
	18.5%
	13.6%
	10.8%
	0%
	1.5%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP No
	3.6%
	11.5%
	13.6%
	14.1%
	29.3%
	25.6%
	52.1%
	46.8%
	1.4%
	1.9%

38

Comparison of Teaneck Public Schools’ Subgroup
Spring 2018 and Spring 2019 NJSLA Administrations Mathematics- Algebra I- Percentages

Subgroup
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)
	Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
	Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
	Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
	
Subgroup
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	
Female
	7.1%
	8.5%
	14.3%
	22.5%
	20.1%
	21.1%
	48.1%
	40.1%
	10.4%
	7.7%
	
Male
	13.4%
	14.6%
	19.1%
	22.3%
	21.7%
	22.3%
	36.3%
	32.5%
	9.6%
	8.3%
	
Hispanic or Latino
	9.3%
	12.3%
	16.7%
	27.9%
	23.1%
	25.4%
	44.4%
	31.1%
	6.5%
	3.3%
	
Asian
	2.5%
	7.9%
	5%
	7.9%
	5%
	21.1%
	65%
	39.5%
	22.5%
	23.7%
	
Black or African-American
	14.5%
	14.3%
	23.4%
	23.5%
	24.2%
	21.4%
	34.7%
	35.7%
	3.2%
	5.1%
	
White
	6.9%
	5.7%
	6.9%
	14.3%
	17.2%
	14.3%
	34.5%
	48.6%
	34.5%
	17.1%
	
Non Economic Disadvantaged
	8.8%
	7.7%
	14.7%
	22.6%
	20.6%
	22.6%
	44.6%
	35.9%
	11.3%
	11.3%
	
Economic Disadvantaged
	13.1%
	19.2%
	20.6%
	22.1%
	21.5%
	20.2%
	37.4%
	36.5%
	7.5%
	1.9%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP Yes
	34.6%
	32.5%
	32.1%
	39%
	21.8%
	15.6%
	10.3%
	10.4%
	1.3%
	2.6%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP No
	2.1%
	4.5%
	11.6%
	16.7%
	20.6%
	23.9%
	52.8%
	45%
	12.9%
	9.9%

39

Comparison of Teaneck Public Schools’ Subgroup
Spring 2018 and Spring 2019 NJSLA Administrations Mathematics- Algebra II- Percentages

Subgroup
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)
	Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
	Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
	Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
	
Subgroup
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	
Female
	37.2%
	5%
	24%
	10%
	17.1%
	25%
	20.2%
	55%
	1.6%
	5%
	
Male
	36.6%
	10.7%
	25.4%
	7.1%
	16.2%
	17.9%
	18.3%
	53.6%
	3.5%
	10.7%
	
Hispanic or Latino
	38.4%
	15.4%
	22.2%
	0%
	20.2%
	30.8%
	16.2%
	53.8%
	3%
	0%
	
Asian
	32.1%
	5.3%
	10.7%
	5.3%
	17.9%
	15.8%
	28.6%
	63.2%
	10.7%
	10.5%
	
Black or African-American
	41.2%
	5.6%
	30.4%
	11.1%
	12.7%
	27.8%
	15.7%
	55.6%
	0%
	0%
	
White
	27.6%
	0%
	20.7%
	12.5%
	17.2%
	18.8%
	31%
	50%
	3.4%
	18.8%
	
Non Economic Disadvantaged
	32.5%
	8.2%
	24.2%
	8.2%
	16%
	21.3%
	23.7%
	54.1%
	3.6%
	8.2%
	
Economic Disadvantaged
	48.1%
	0%
	26%
	14.3%
	18.2%
	28.6%
	7.8%%
	57.1%
	0%
	0%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP Yes
	76.6%
	0%
	14.9%
	0%
	6.4%
	50%
	2.1%
	50%
	0%
	0%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP No
	28.6%
	7.6%
	26.8%
	9.1%
	18.8%
	21.2%
	22.8%
	54.5%
	3.1%
	7.6%

4

0

Comparison of Teaneck Public Schools’ Subgroup
Spring 2018 and Spring 2019 NJSLA Administrations Mathematics- Geometry- Percentages

Subgroup
	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)
	Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)
	Approaching Expectations
(Level 3)
	Meeting Expectations
(Level 4)
	Exceeding Expectations
(Level 5)
	
Subgroup
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	2018
	2019
	
Female
	8.4%
	6.6%
	37.8%
	28.9%
	34.5%
	37.2%
	18.5%
	24%
	.8%
	3.3%
	
Male
	6.7%
	10.6%
	39.6%
	30.3%
	35.8%
	38.7%
	17.2%
	17.6%
	.7%
	2.8%
	
Hispanic or Latino
	4.7%
	3.2%
	36.5%
	32.3%
	42.4%
	44.1%
	16.5%
	19.4%
	0%
	1.1%
	
Asian
	7.4%
	11.1%
	29.6%
	3.7%
	14.8%
	40.7%
	44.4%
	37%
	3.7%
	7.4%
	
Black or African-American
	10.3%
	15.1%
	47.7%
	38.7%
	31.8%
	32.1%
	10.3%
	12.3%
	0%
	1.9%
	
White
	4.2%
	0%
	25%
	6.7%
	37.5%
	43.3%
	29.2%
	40%
	4.2%
	10%
	
Non Economic Disadvantaged
	7%
	8.6%
	35.7%
	25.8%
	36.8%
	39.9%
	19.5%
	22.2%
	1.1%
	3.5%
	
Economic Disadvantaged
	8.8%
	9.2%
	47.1%
	41.5%
	30.9%
	32.3%
	13.2%
	15.4%
	0%
	1.5%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP Yes
	14.9%
	22.4%
	58.2%
	55.2%
	22.4%
	17.9%
	4.5%
	4.5%
	0%
	0%
	
Students With Disabilities-IEP No
	4.8%
	4.1%
	31.7%
	20.9%
	39.8%
	44.9%
	22.6%
	26.0%
	1.1%
	4.1%

41

Next Steps Mathematics

●	Recommendation 1: Implementation of the balanced coaching model by additional mathematics coaches for our three elementary schools (Goal 1: Academic Programming)
●	Recommendation 2: Use of personalized learning programs which support the individual needs of students as demonstrated on the initial pre-assessment using Moby Max (Goal 1: Academic Programming)
●	Recommendation 3: Provide professional development through The Institute for Learning to ensure that high-level, rigorous tasks that involve grade-level mathematics standards are frequently provided (Goal 1: Academic Programming)
●	Recommendation 4: Ensure that curricula and learning opportunities are personally relevant to students (Goal 4: Equity and Inclusion)
●	Recommendation 5: Improve the classroom visit process by providing timely and effective feedback in order to improved instructional practices (Goal 1: Academic Programming)
42
●	Recommendation 6: Use the levels of proficiency to determine types of and levels of interventions needed. These interventions will include support from mathematics enrichment teachers, , after-school and summer program participation, differentiated reading and writing instruction, and individualized support.

Parental Resources

Using the Individual Student Report to Assist your Child

◼ Review the Individual Score Reports to determine areas of strengths
◼ Speak with your child’s teacher regarding ways to assist your son or daughter
◼ Be sure to ask questions of your child’s teacher throughout the year to determine strategies for support
◼ To find resources in every category and at every grade level, visit http://bealearninghero.org/skill-builder.

You can use your child’s individual score to find resources that will match his or her areas of strength and areas for improvement.

Useful Websites for Learning more about the Assessment

To learn more about the content of the assessment and access released test questions, visit

◼ https://nj.mypearsonsupport.com/manuals/#blueprints ◼ https://nj.digitalitemlibrary.com
◼ http://www.state.nj.us/education/assessment
◼ You can also learn more about New Jersey’s K-12 standards at
http://www.state.nj.us/education/cccs/
43

Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM)

44

Dynamic Learning Maps: Overview

◼ Alternate assessment for students with cognitive disabilities.

◼ IEP team determines who is eligible to take the DLM based on the federal requirements and guidelines.

◼ Year-End model given in English Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science.

◼ ELA and Math tested in Grades 3-8 and 11

◼ Science tested in Grades 5, 8 and 11

45

Performance Levels

Dynamic Learning Maps uses four performance levels that delineate the knowledge, skills, and practices represented by the Essential Elements that students are able to demonstrate.

Level 1 Emerging

The student demonstrates emerging understanding of and ability to apply content knowledge and skills represented by the Essential Elements.

Level 2 Approaching

The student’s understanding of and ability to apply targeted content knowledge and skills represented by the Essential Elements is approaching the target.

Level 3 Target

The student’s understanding of and ability to apply content knowledge and skills represented by the Essential Elements is at target.

Level 4 Advanced

The student demonstrates advanced understanding of and ability to apply targeted content knowledge and skills represented by the Essential Elements.

46

Comparison of Teaneck Public School District’s Number of Students Tested Spring 2018 & Spring 2019 DLM Administration

English Language Arts

Students Tested 2018

Students Tested 2019
	Different between number of students tested in 2018 and 2019

51

51

0

Mathematics

47

44

-3

Science

17

17

0

47

English Language Arts
End of Year Report District Results 2018-19

Grade

3
	
Number of Students Tested

Emerging

Approachin g Target

At Target

Advanced
	
%
At Target or Advanced
	
State %
At Target or Advanced
	
	7
	2
	0
	5
	0
	71%
	28%
	
4
	7
	2
	2
	2
	1
	43%
	30%
	
5
	9
	3
	2
	4
	0
	44%
	35%
	
6
	5
	1
	2
	2
	0
	40%
	29%
	
7
	7
	1
	2
	3
	1
	57%
	37%
	
8
	3
	0
	3
	0
	0
	0%
	36%
	
11
	5
	2
	2
	0
	1
	20%
	*
	
12
	1
	0
	0
	1
	0
	100%
	*

*The high school scores at the state level were combined for grades 11 and 12. 31% of the students at the
state level were at target or advanced.	48

Mathematics
End of Year Report District Results 2018-19

Grade

3
	
Number of Students Tested

Emerging

Approachin g Target

At Target

Advanced
	
%
At Target or Advanced
	State %
At Target or Advanced

		7
	2
	0
	4
	1
	71%
	31%
	
	4
	7
	3
	1
	1
	2
	43%
	36%
	
	5
	9
	6
	2
	1
	0
	11%
	23%
	
	6
	5
	1
	2
	2
	0
	40%
	22%
	
	7
	7
	3
	2
	1
	1
	29%
	13%
	
	8
	3
	0
	2
	1
	0
	33%
	16%
	
	11
	5
	3
	2
	0
	0
	0%
	*
	
	12
	1
	0
	1
	0
	0
	0%
	*

*The high school scores at the state level were combined for grades 11 and 12. 9% of the students at the state level were at target or advanced.

49

Science
End of Year Report District Results 2018-19

Grade

5

Number of Students Tested

Emerging

Approaching Target

At Target

Advanced

%
At Target or Advanced

8
	
4
	
3
	
1
	
0
	
13%

8
	
3
	
0
	
3
	
0
	
0
	
0%

11
	
5
	
4
	
1
	
0
	
0
	
0%

12
	
1
	
0
	
1
	
0
	
0
	
0%

50

Notable Achievements

◼ In 2019, The District outperformed the State at the At Target and Advanced Levels in English Language Arts achievement in grades three -seven and high school.

◼ The District also outperformed the State’s Level 5 achievement in grades three, four, and grades five - eight in mathematics.

◼ There was an upward trend of students in English Language Arts in grade three for the last three years:
▪ 2016-17 13% At Target and Advanced ▪ 17-18 40% At Target and Advanced
▪ 18-19 71% At Target and Advanced

51

Next Steps

◼ Need for supplemental curriculum that focuses on the Essential Elements to bridge gap in curriculum and standards.
◼ Need for curriculum writing inthe the self-contained classrooms utilizing the DLM Essential Elements.
(Priority Area Number 1: Academic Programming)

◼ Teachers will focus on the following conceptual areas: ▪ ELA:
▪ Determine critical elements of text ▪ Construct understandings of text
▪ Integrate ideas and information from text ▪ Math:
▪ Compare, compose, and decompose numbers and set ▪ Represent and interpret data displays
▪ Use operations and models to solve problems ▪ Science:
▪ Life Science	52

ACCESS for English Language Learners

53

WIDA ACCESS for ELLs

● Is administered to Kindergarten through Grade 12 students who have been identified as English language learners (ELLs)

● Is given annually to monitor students' progress in learning academic English

● Assesses the four language domains of: ❏ Listening
❏ Speaking ❏ Reading ❏ Writing

● Minimum composite score of 4.5 needed to be considered for exiting a language assistance program

● The composite scores are used to make instructional decision for our students.	54

Students Tested in Elementary School

23

16

11

9

2

55

Students Tested in Middle School

9
6

5
4

56

Students Tested in High School

11

9	9
8

57

ACCESS Proficiency Levels - Elementary

58

ACCESS Proficiency Levels - Middle School

Proficiency Levels Grades Five Through Eight

59

ACCESS Proficiency Levels - High School

Proficiency Levels Grades Nine Through Twelve

60

Next Steps for English Learners

● The scores by domain demonstrate strengths in listening and reading

● The majority of our students are scoring in the range of 3.0 which means that they are developing the necessary academic English needed to flourish in an English-spoken classroom

● Professional development will be focused in two ways:
▪ The Institute for Learning will work with our content-area teachers to ensure that tasks are appropriate for all learners, including our emergent bilinguals.

▪ Department meetings will be focused on supporting English learners in writing

● Continued focus on supporting families with English learners by hosting family nights and family events                                         61