Measuring College and
Career Readiness

1

PARCC Results: Spring 2018 Administration

TEANECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS

October 10, 2018

NEW JERSEY’ S STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

The 2017-2018 school year marks the fourth administration of the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and
Careers (PARCC).	This presentation will compare trends over a three-year period, 2016-2018.

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.

Students took science assessments at grades 4, 8, and 11 .
T h ese s c o r es h a v e n o t b een r eleas ed, a s the y w ere a p i l o t o f the new a ssessme n t .

2

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

The goal  for all students

3

2
0
1
8

4

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY

PARCC ADMINISTRATION
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ART S/ LITERACY - PERCENTAGES 

*Grade 11 does not include students who took an AP/IB test. **Level 4 and Level 5 is an indication a student is on pace to be college and career ready.
Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.	5

TO NEW JERSEY 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/ LITERACY - PERCENTAGES 

	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)	Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)	Approaching Expectations (Level 3)	Meeting Expectations (Level 4)	Exceeding Expectations (Level 5)	
	District	State	District	State	District	State	District	State	District	State	
	2018	2018	2018	2018	2018	2018	2018	2018	2018	2018	
Grade 3	6.6%	13.5%	14.6%	13.5%	23.9%	21.4%	45.6%	43.5%	9.3%	8.1%	
Grade 4	2.8%	7.6%	13.3%	12.3%	18%	22.1%	47.4%	39.1%	18.5%	18.9%	
Grade 5	6.1%	6.9%	13.4%	12.6%	30.5%	22.4%	45.5%	47.2%	4.5%	10.8%	
Grade 6	8.9%	6.2%	14.6%	13.6%	21.1%	24%	41.5%	41.3%	13.8%	14.9%	
Grade 7	6.6%	8.6%	8.4%	10.2%	22.0%	18.5%	40,7%	34.1%	22.3%	28.6%	
Grade 8	5.3%	8.7%	5.7%	11.1%	18.7%	19.8%	52.7%	39.9%	17.6%	20.4%	
Grade 9	8.5%	12.3%	11.2%	12.5%	20%	21.1%	48.1%	38%	12.2%	16.1%	
Grade 10	13.8%	18.3%	12.3%	12.8%	16.4%	19.0%	39.8%	31.8%	17.8%	18.1%	
Grade 11*	14.6%	23.1%	10.6%	16.6%	21.9%	22.2%	33.6%	29.1%	19.3%	9.0%	

*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
DISTRICT’ S COMBINED PROFICIENCY COMPARED TO STATE’ S COMBINED PROFICIENCY

		
Grade	2018 Levels 4s and 5s	
	District	State	
Grade 3	54.9%	51.7%	
Grade 4	65.9%	58%	
Grade 5	50%	58%	
Grade 6	55.3%	56.2%	
Grade 7	63%	62.7%	
Grade 8	70.2%	60.4%	
Grade 9	60.3%	54.1%	
Grade 10	57.6%	49.9%	
Grade 11	59%	39%	

7

TEANECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ COHORT ANALYSIS
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/ LITERACY 2016 - 2018

8

								
	
Schools	
Grade			School/State Percentage Meeting and Exceeding Expectations			

3	2016	2016 State	2017	2017 State	2018	2018 State		
	Hawthorne		55%	

47%		55%	

50%	54.3%	

51.7%		
	Lowell		51%			65%		63.5%			
	Whittier		43%			43%		46.5%			

Schools	
Grade			School/State Percentage Meeting and Exceeding Expectations		

4	2016	2016 State	2017	2017 State	2018	2018 State	
Hawthorne		54%	

54%		58%	

56%	60%	

58%	
Lowell		39%			52%		77.5%		
Whittier		56%			49%		60%		

9

	
Schools	
Grade			School/State Percentage Meeting and Exceeding Expectations			

5	2016	2016 State	2017	2017 State	2018	2018 State		
	BFMS		45%	
53%		54%	
52%	44.2%	
58%		
	TJMS		52%			50%		56.4%			

Schools	
Grade			School/State Percentage Meeting and Exceeding Expectations		

6	2016	2016 State	2017	2017 State	2018	2018 State	
BFMS		48%	
52%		42%	
53%	50.9%	
56.2%	
TJMS		62%			59%		59%		

10

								
	
Schools	
Grade			School/State Percentage Meeting and Exceeding Expectations			

7	2016	2016 State	2017	2017 State	2018	2018 State		
	BFMS		48%	
52%		54%	
59%	58%	
62.7%		
	TJMS		58%			66%		68.1%			

Schools	
Grade			School/State Percentage Meeting and Exceeding Expectations		

8	2016	2016 State	2017	2017 State	2018	2018 State	
BFMS		56%	
51%		59%	
59%	66.9%	
60.4%	
TJMS		61%			63%		73.2%		

11

				
	Grade	School/State Comparison  Percentage Meeting and Exceeding Expectations		
		2017	2017 State	2018	2018 State		
	9	59%	51%	60.3%	54.1%		
	10	57%	45%	57.6%	49.9%		
	11	59%	37%	52.9%	38.1%		

12

						
		2016	2017	2018		
	Performance Level	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5		
	WHITE	45.5%	59.3%	64%		
	AFRICAN AMERICAN	40.7%	56.7%	47.4%		
	ASIAN	83.3%	64%	63%		
	HISPANIC	46%	45.%	54.5%		
	MALE	45%	45.6%	56.8%		
	FEMALE	53.8%	63%	53.4%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP- Yes	
28.3%	
23.8%	
28.8%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP-No	
54.4%	
62.1%	
62.6%		
	ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED	
46.5%	
40.8%	
50%		
	NON ECON. DISADVANTAGED	
51.2%	
62.2%	
57.9%		
				13		

						
		2016	2017	2018		
	Performance Level	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5		
	WHITE	67.6%	65.4%	72.7%		
	AFRICAN AMERICAN	45.9%	42.9%	65.7%		
	ASIAN	82.1%	85.2%	80%		
	HISPANIC	50.6%	50%	59.1%		
	MALE	45.2%	46%	58.1%		
	FEMALE	66.4%	59.8%	73.6%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP-Yes	
17%	
26.9%	
31.4%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP-No	
67.4%	
59.8%	
76.9%		
	ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED	
46.9%	
38.1%	
54.9%		
	NON ECON. DISADVANTAGED	
60.9%	
62.5%	
72.9%		
				14		

						
		2016	2017	2018		
	Performance Level	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5		
	WHITE	76.9%	68.4%	61.5%		
	AFRICAN AMERICAN	41.2%	40%	42.2%		
	ASIAN	61.8%	79.2%	73.1%		
	HISPANIC	41.5%	46.5%	49.5%		
	MALE	43.4%	34.8%	40.9%		
	FEMALE	52.2%	66.1%	59.7%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP- Yes	
21.1%	
14.8%	
22.0%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP-No	
55.7%	
62.2%	
58.8%		
	ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED	
40%	
37.4%	
48.1%		
	NON ECON. DISADVANTAGED	
55%	
61.4%	
51.4%		
				15		

						
		2016	2017	2018		
	Performance Level	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5		
	WHITE	84%	60.9%	73.5%		
	AFRICAN AMERICAN	55.1%	46.5%	41.9%		
	ASIAN	67.5%	75%	83.3%		
	HISPANIC	51.7%	43.8%	52.3%		
	MALE	48.3%	43.5%	37.5%		
	FEMALE	69.5%	56.8%	72.2%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP- Yes	
22.1%	
15%	
14.3%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP-No	
73.3%	
61.1%	
67.4%		
	ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED	
48.4%	
43.5%	
37.5%		
	NON ECON. DISADVANTAGED	
63.3%	
55.5%	
68.3%		
				16		

						
		2016	2017	2018		
	Performance Level	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5		
	WHITE	60.9%	69.%	71.4%		
	AFRICAN AMERICAN	51.4%	66.3%	51.9%		
	ASIAN	92.3%	66.7%	83.8%		
	HISPANIC	47.5%	48.9%	64.6%		
	MALE	44.5%	52.5%	47.8%		
	FEMALE	65.3%	67.9%	78.1%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP- Yes	
8.3%	
29.6%	
24.2%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP-No	
70.6%	
72.5%	
75.4%		
	ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED	
39%	
50.5%	
62.3%		
	NON ECON. DISADVANTAGED	
63.3%	
66.3%	
63.5%		
				17		

						
		2016	2017	2018		
	Performance Level	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5		
	WHITE	75%	68.2%	85.7%		
	AFRICAN AMERICAN	51%	66.3%	71.1%		
	ASIAN	64.3%	85.2%	78%		
	HISPANIC	47.5%	63.9%	61.9%		
	MALE	50.7%	50.4%	59.2%		
	FEMALE	66.3%	72.2%	80.3%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP- Yes	
13.3%	
13.8%	
29.4%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP-No	
71.5%	
78.3%	
84.5%		
	ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED	
45.8%	
57%	
66.7%		
	NON ECON. DISADVANTAGED	
63.2%	
63.5%	
72.5%		
				18		

						
		2016	2017	2018		
	Performance Level	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5		
	WHITE	56.4%	68.2%	83.3%		
	AFRICAN AMERICAN	40.9%	66.3%	47.5%		
	ASIAN	80%	85.2%	88.6%		
	HISPANIC	46.7%	63.9%	61%		
	MALE	40.4%	50.4%	52.1%		
	FEMALE	63.4%	72.2%	68.2%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP- Yes	
13.3%	
13.8%	
17.8%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP-No	
71.5%	
78.3%	
74.3%		
	ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED	
45.8%	
57%	
42.7%		
	NON ECON. DISADVANTAGED	
63.2%	
63.5%	
68%		
				19		

						
		2016	2017	2018		
	Performance Level	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5		
	WHITE	51.4%	66.7%	67.9%		
	AFRICAN AMERICAN	27.1%	51.9%	46.6%		
	ASIAN	56.5%	73.2%	77.3%		
	HISPANIC	42.5%	53.3%	59.8%		
	MALE	28.5%	48.2%	52.3%		
	FEMALE	46.9%	65.7%	64.2%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP- Yes	
14.3%	
23.6%	
24.2%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP-No	
44.8%	
65.1%	
68.5%		
	ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED	
28.3%	
45.2%	
39.4%		
	NON ECON. DISADVANTAGED	
41.7%	
62.8%	
64.1%		
				20		

						
		2016	2017	2018		
	Performance Level	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5		
	WHITE	34.6%	74.2%	67.9%		
	AFRICAN AMERICAN	31.5%	49.6%	45%		
	ASIAN	44.4%	76.5%	71.8%		
	HISPANIC	30.4%	60%	50.6%		
	MALE	22.4%	9.7%	41.8%		
	FEMALE	44.2%	18.8%	63.6%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP- Yes	
10%	
27.7%	
14.5%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP-No	
44.8%	
68%	
62.6%		
	ECONOMICALLY
DISADVANTAGED	
38.5%	
64.7%	
39.2%		
	NON ECON.
DISADVANTAGED	
36.7%	
46.7%	
58.5%		
				21		

What worked well 
Implementation of new reading curricula in grades three and four
Differentiated reading instruction in grades seven and eight
Implementation of revised Measure of Academic Progress (MAP)
assessments, which included detailed projected PARCC proficiency reports and student achievement data

Areas of focus
District-wide focus on academic writing

Steps for moving forward
Department meetings focused on strategies for teaching adolescent writers
Implementation of new third and fourth grade reading resources
Strengthening the process of identifying and responding to students who may be struggling with reading or writing
Increased collaborative discussions between administrators and teachers regarding student engagement, questioning and discussions

22

Grades K through 2
Teachers will participate in monthly data team meetings to review classroom assessments, Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), benchmark
assessments, and Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) testing to identify areas of student strength and areas needing remediation.
Kindergarten teachers will participate in a yearlong training on encouraging and supporting primary students’ writing.

Grades 3 and 4
Teachers will utilize the Benchmark Online platform for administering PARCC-like unit assessments in order to prepare students for the assessments they will take in the spring 2019.
Based on multiple data-sources, teachers will create strategic teaching groups to ensure that all students are meeting grade level standards.
Literacy Enrichment Teachers (LETs) will work with grade-level teams to analyze current data and provide instructional strategies for responding to students’
needs.
Parent outreach through PTO to highlight the importance of a home-school
partnership for effectively motivating students and improving learning outcomes
23

Grades 5 through 8
Teachers will focus on improving writing by conferring with students and providing meaningful, timely feedback.
Faculty meeting time will be used to analyze data and plan for differentiated instruction.
School-level administrators will monitor progress of students enrolled in reading and basic skills intervention programs.
Teachers will plan instruction that includes flexible student
grouping and learning centers based on data from Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) and benchmark assessments
Grades 9 through 11
Social studies and English teachers will analyze PARCC data for trends and patterns.
Content areas will utilize common strategies to ensure that students meet grade level expectations.

24

2
0
1
8

25

MATHEMATICS

COMPARISON OF TEANECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ SPRING 2016 , SPRING 2017 & SPRING 201 8 PARCC ADMINISTRATION
MATHEMATICS - PERCENTAGES 

*Approximately 30,000 New Jersey students in grade 8 participated in the PARCC Algebra I assessment. Thus, PARCC 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.
Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.	26

COMPARISON OF TEANECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ SPRING 2018 PARCC ADMINISTRATION
TO NEW JERSEY 
MATHEMATICS TO NEW JERSEY- PERCENTAGES 

	Not Yet Meeting Expectations (Level 1)	Partially Meeting Expectations (Level 2)	Approaching Expectations (Level 3)	Meeting Expectations (Level 4)	Exceeding Expectations (Level 5)	
	District	State	District	State	District	State	District	State	District	State	
	2018	2018	2018	2018	2018	2018	2018	2018	2018	2018	
Grade 3	4.4%	8%	15%	15.3%	27.4%	23.7%	37.2%	37.8%	15.9%	15.2%	
Grade 4	6.2%	7.5%	15.6%	16.8%	30.8%	26.3%	42.7%	41.8%	4.7%	7.6%	
Grade 5	3.2%	7.5%	21.6%	17%	28.8%	26.7%	33.6%	38.5%	12.8%	10.4%	
Grade 6	8.4%	8.5%	26.5%	20.1%	33.3%	27.9%	24.5%	36.6%	7.2%	8%	
Grade 7	9.7%	7.7%	23.5%	20.3%	30.3%	28.6%	29.6%	36%	6.9%	7.4%	
Grade 8*	17.5%	22%	15.5%	22.7%	26.2%	27.1%	39.8%	27.2%	1%	1%	
Algebra I	10.3%	11.3%	16.7%	18.6%	20.9%	24.3%	42.1%	39.3%	10%	6.5%	
Geometry	7.5%	9.4%	38.7%	31.5%	35.2%	29.6%	17.8%	24.6%	0.8%	4.9%	
Algebra II	36.9%	31%	24.7%	22.4%	16.6%	18%	19.2%	24.6%	2.6%	4%	

*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.	27

Grade	2017 & 2018 Level 4 and 5 District vs. State	
	District 2017	State 2017	District 2018	State 2018	
Grade 3	59%	53%	53.1%	53%	
Grade 4	42%	48%	47.9%	49.4%	
Grade 5	37%	46%	46.4%	48.4%	
Grade 6	33%	44%	31.7%	43.5%	
Grade 7	36%	40%	36.5%	43.4%	
Grade 8	36%	28%	40.8%	28.2%	
Algebra I	50%	42%	52.1%	45.8%	
Geometry	21%	30%	18.6%	29.5%	
Algebra II	15%	27%	21.8%	28.6%	
Bold indicates an increase from 2017; Green indicates higher than state
28

				

2016	
2017	
2018	Cohort Increase/
Decline	
Grade 3	52%	Grade 4	42%	Grade 5	46.4%	-5.6	
Grade 4	42%	Grade 5	37%	Grade 6	31.7%	-10.3	
Grade 5	40%	Grade 6	33%	Grade 7	36.5%	-3.5	
Grade 6	43%	Grade 7	36%	Grade 8	40.8%	-2.2	
Grade 7	37%	Grade 8	36%	Algebra I *	52.1%	+15.1	
Assumes Students Followed Normal Course Sequence	

2016	
2017	
2018	Cohort
Increase/ Decline	
Grade 8	34%	Algebra I *	40%	Geometry	18.6%	-15.4	
Algebra I*	31.5%	Geometry	21%	Algebra II	21.8%	-19.2	
Geometry	15%	Algebra II	15%			0	

*This data reflects students who took Algebra I as freshman at Teaneck High School
29

	
Schools	
Grade			School/State Percentage Meeting and Exceeding Expectations			

3	2016	2016 State	2017	2017 State	2018	2018 State		
	Hawthorne		57%	

52%	61%	

53%	50.6%	

53%		
	Lowell		57%		62%		63.5%			
	Whittier		45%		54%		45.1%			

Schools	
Grade			School/State Percentage Meeting and Exceeding Expectations			

4	2016	2016 State	2017	2017 State	2018	2018 State	
Hawthorne		48%	

46%	49%	

48%	43.1%	

49.4%	
Lowell		39%		43%		49.3%		
Whittier		41%		35%		49.3%		

30

	
Schools	
Grade			School/State Percentage Meeting and Exceeding Expectations				

5	2016	2016 State	2017	2017 State	2018	2018 State		
	BFMS		33%	
47%	33%	
46%	37.1%	
48.8%		
	TJMS		48%		39%		56.8%			

Schools	
Grade			School/State Percentage Meeting and Exceeding Expectations			

6	2016	2016 State	2017	2017 State	2018	2018 State	
BFMS		38%	
43%	26%	
44%	31%	
43.5%	
TJMS		47%		40%		32.4%		

31

	
Schools	
Grade			School/State Percentage Meeting and Exceeding Expectations				

7	2016	2016 State	2017	2017 State	2018	2018 State		
	BFMS		38%	
38%	32%	
40%	33.6%	
43.4%		
	TJMS		37%		40%		39.4%			

Schools	
Grade			School/State Percentage Meeting and Exceeding Expectations			

8	2016	2016 State	2017	2017 State	2018	2018 State	
BFMS		39%	
26%	44%	
28%	33.7%	
28.2%	
TJMS		29%		28%		47.6%		

32

Schools	School/State Percentage Meeting and Exceeding Expectations	
	2016	2016 State	2017	2017 State	2018	2018 State	
BFMS	94%	

26%	100%	

42%	100%	

45.8%	

TJMS	
93%		
100%		
97%		
THS	32%		40%		41.5%		
District	41%		50%		52.1%		

33

	
School	School/State Percentage Meeting and Exceeding Expectations		
		2016	2016 State	2017	2017 State	2018	2018 State		
	THS	15%	21%	21%	30%	18.6%	29.5%		

34

	
School	School/State Percentage Meeting and Exceeding Expectations		
		2016	2016 State	2017	2017 State	2018	2018 State		
	THS	16%	25%	15%	27%	21.8%	28.6%		

35

						
		2016	2017	2018		
	Performance Level	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5		
	WHITE	41.7%	70.4%	60%		
	AFRICAN AMERICAN	42%	53.7%	47.4%		
	ASIAN	80%	80.8%	74.1%		
	HISPANIC	54.5%	50%	50%		
	MALE	47.7%	57.7%	67.4%		
	FEMALE	55.7%	60%	42.7%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP-Yes	
36.2%	
28.6%	
36.5%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP-No	
54.4%	
66.7%	
58%		
	ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED	
55.9%	
46.1%	
45.3%		
	NON ECON. DISADVANTAGED	
47.1%	
66.4%	
57.9%		
				36		

						
		2016	2017	2018		
	Performance Level	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5		
	WHITE	62.2%	53.6%	59.1%		
	AFRICAN AMERICAN	32.9%	28.9%	44.3%		
	ASIAN	72.4%	85.2%	68%		
	HISPANIC	34.2%	39.2%	40.9%		
	MALE	37.1%	46.8%	46.7%		
	FEMALE	48.4%	37%	48.1%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP-Yes	
13.2%	
23.1%	
21.6%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP-No	
51.4	
47.1%	
55.6%		
	ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED	
34.1%	
32.2%	
32.9%		
	NON ECON. DISADVANTAGED	
47.4%	
48.3%	
56.6%		
				37		

						
		2016	2017	2018		
	Performance Level	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5		
	WHITE	69.2%	52.6%	74.1%		
	AFRICAN AMERICAN	26%	34.1%	30%		
	ASIAN	62.9%	62.5%	84.6%		
	HISPANIC	37.9%	24.7%	45.5%		
	MALE	45.1%	29.2%	47.7%		
	FEMALE	36.7%	42.6%	45.1%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES-IEP Yes	
21.1%	
9.3%	
21.7%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP-No	
46.1%	
44.1%	
54.2%		
	ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED	
30.6%	
21%	
36%		
	NON ECON. DISADVANTAGED	
49.3%	
45.1%	
54.2%		
				38		

						
		2016	2017	2018		
	Performance Level	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5		
	WHITE	60%	56%	50%		
	AFRICAN AMERICAN	33.7%	25.3%	23.7%		
	ASIAN	63.4%	47.2%	60%		
	HISPANIC	37.1%	28.9%	24.4%		
	MALE	40.5%	33.9%	27.9%		
	FEMALE	44.5%	31.7%	35.4%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP-Yes	
13.2%	
15%	
10.7%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP-No	
53.6%	
37.9%	
37.8%		
	ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED	
31.5%	
22.7%	
18.9%		
	NON ECON. DISADVANTAGED	
49%	
39.7%	
41.3%		
				39		

						
		2016	2017	2018		
	Performance Level	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5		
	WHITE	59.1%	41.4%	60.7%		
	AFRICAN AMERICAN	32.7%	31%	25%		
	ASIAN	65.4%	62.8%	53.8%		
	HISPANIC	29.6%	25.3%	34.7%		
	MALE	29.4%	37.1%	38.1%		
	FEMALE	44.6%	34.8%	34.8%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP-Yes	
5.1%	
9.7%	
12.1%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP-No	
47.5%	
46.2%	
44.1%		
	ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED	
22%	
21.1%	
31.3%		
	NON ECON. DISADVANTAGED	
44.9%	
44.7%	
40%		
				40		

						
		2016	2017	2018		
	Performance Level	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5		
	WHITE	54.5%	42.9%	57.9%		
	AFRICAN AMERICAN	28.3%	25.5%	40%		
	ASIAN	43.5%	71.4%	52.2%		
	HISPANIC	35.3%	40.3%	35.3%		
	MALE	33.1%	32%	31.6%		
	FEMALE	34.5%	39.8%	49.1%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP-Yes	
14%	
9.2%	
13.6%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP-No	
41.2%	
48.5%	
53.6%		
	ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED	
23.1%	
36.5%	
44%		
	NON ECON. DISADVANTAGED	
40.2%	
35.4%	
38.3%		
				41		

						
		2016	2017	2018		
	Performance Level	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5		
	WHITE	50%	60.7%	69%		
	AFRICAN AMERICAN	30.4%	42.5%	37.9%		
	ASIAN	71.4%	74.2%	87.5%		
	HISPANIC	36.4%	49.1%	50.9%		
	MALE	38.4%	50.9%	45.9%		
	FEMALE	43%	49.3%	58.4%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP-Yes	
15.4%	
23.2%	
11.5%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP-No	
46.9	
56.3%	
65.7%		
	ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED	
29.6%	
32%	
44.9%		
	NON ECON. DISADVANTAGED	
46.6%	
59.2%	
55.9%		
				42		

						
		2016	2017	2018		
	Performance Level	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5		
	WHITE	27.5%	44.8%	33.3%		
	AFRICAN AMERICAN	7.4%	9.6%	10.3%		
	ASIAN	45.5%	37%	48.1%		
	HISPANIC	14.9%	22.5%	16.5%		
	MALE	17.1%	21.1%	17.9%		
	FEMALE	13.3%	21.4%	19.3%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP-Yes	
3.9%	
7.8%	
4.5%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP-No	
19.1%	
25.1%	
23.7%		
	ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED	
7.9%	
14.1%	
13.2%		
	NON ECON. DISADVANTAGED	
18.3%	
24.6%	
20.5%		
				43		

						
		2016	2017	2018		
	Performance Level	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5	Levels 4-5		
	WHITE	37.5%	31.3%	34.5%		
	AFRICAN AMERICAN	6.6%	3.5%	15.7%		
	ASIAN	40.7%	42.9%	39.3%		
	HISPANIC	11.3%	16.1%	19.2%		
	MALE	15.7%	13.8%	21.8%		
	FEMALE	16.2%	16.2%	21.7%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP-Yes	
2.2%	
0%	
2.1%		
	STUDENTS WITH DISABLITIES IEP-No	
18.8%	
19.1%	
25.9%		
	ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED	
12.3%	
10.1%	
7.8%		
	NON ECON. DISADVANTAGED	
17.4%	
17.1%	
27.3%		
				44		

What worked well
Unit revision and professional development on pedagogy for Number and Operation with Fractions in grades 3 and 4 yielded improved student
performance on these content standards.
The focus on mathematical reasoning skills at the middle school resulted in higher student performance in this area on the PARCC Math in grades 5 – 8.
The implementation of revised Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) assessments, which included detailed projected PARCC proficiency reports and student achievement data, provided teachers with useful data.
Algebra I class every day at Teaneck High School has continued to support student achievement.
Areas of focus
Primary grades focus on strengthening number sense and place value to improve student understanding
Strengthening middle school mathematics instruction
Continued focus on freshman students who are taking Algebra I
Continued focus on Geometry and Algebra II

45

Steps moving forward
Department meetings focused on differentiation and student centered-classrooms
Strengthening the process of identifying and responding to students who may be struggling in mathematics
Personalized learning paths for all middle school students via adaptive instructional software
Implementation of the Illustrative Mathematics Tasks in grades 6 – Algebra II to strengthen mathematical reasoning, mathematical modeling and problem-solving skills
Increased collaborative discussions between administrators and teachers regarding content-specific best practices to foster student engagement and formative assessment to drive instructional
decision-making

46

K-2
Implementation of the Go Math! New Jersey Student Learning Standards edition
Use of student learning center activities to develop number sense and reinforce place value concepts
Continued focus on subtraction with regrouping
Grade 3 and Grade 4
Implementation of the Go Math! New Jersey Student Learning Standards edition
Math Enrichment Teachers (METs) will continue to provide support and guidance on content specific pedagogical practices and on
effective implementation of the math workshop model to maximize differentiation opportunities for students

47

Grades 5 -8
Implementation of the Go Math! New Jersey Student Learning Standards edition for grade grades 5 -6
Strategic implementation of the online learning platform designed to assess student understanding and create personalized learning paths targeting areas in which student struggle
Analysis of domain-specific learning progressions to identify and
remediate areas of need, and to determine if curricular adjustments are necessary
Department meetings focused on differentiation, student-centered learning and problem-solving for struggling learners
Integration of the Illustrative Mathematics Tasks to strengthen mathematical reasoning and problem-solving skills

Algebra I, Geometry and Algebra II
Department meetings focused on differentiation, student-centered learning and problem-solving for struggling learners
Integration of the Illustrative Mathematics Tasks to strengthen mathematical reasoning and problem-solving skills

48

2
0
1
9

49

LOOKING AHEAD

LENGTH AND TIME CHANGES

The state’s English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics assessments will no longer be called Partnership for
Assessment of College and Career Readiness (PARCC).
Effective in the Spring 2019, the statewide assessments for ELA and mathematics will be called:
New Jersey Student Learning Assessment - ELA (NJSLA-ELA)
New Jersey Student Learning Assessment - Mathematics (NJSLA-M)
There will be a reduction in the number of testing items and a reduction in testing time.

50

51

52

53