PARCC Results: Spring 2018
Administration	Measuring College

TEANECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS	and Career

Readiness

October 10, 2018

1

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 Assessments (ELA/L)

English Language Arts and Literacy 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. These scores have not been released, as they were a pilot of the new assessment.

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:

Level 5:

Meeting grade-level expectations

Exceeding grade-level expectations

The goal for all
students

3

2 ENGLISH LANGUAGE	0
ARTS/LITERACY         1 8

4

COMPARISON OF TEANECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ SPRING 2016, SPRING 2017, SPRING 2018 PARCC ADMINISTRATION
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/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

COMPARISON OF TEANECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ SPRING 2018 PARCC ADMINISTRATION 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

PARCC COMPARISON BY SCHOOL ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY 2016-2018

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

PARCC COMPARISON BY SCHOOL ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY 2016-2018

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

PARCC COMPARISON BY SCHOOL ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY 2016-2018

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

PARCC COMPARISON OF HIGH SCHOOL TO STATE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY 2017-2018

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

COMPARISON OF TEANECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ SUBGROUP SPRING 2016, SPRING 2017 & SPRING 2018 PARCC ADMINISTRATION
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS GRADE 3 - PERCENTAGES

	
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

COMPARISON OF TEANECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ SUBGROUP SPRING 2016, SPRING 2017 & SPRING 2018 PARCC ADMINISTRATION
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS GRADE 4 - PERCENTAGES

	
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

COMPARISON OF TEANECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ SUBGROUP SPRING 2016, SPRING 2017 & SPRING 2018 PARCC ADMINISTRATION
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS GRADE 5 - PERCENTAGES

	
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

COMPARISON OF TEANECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ SUBGROUP SPRING 2016, SPRING 2017 & SPRING 2018 PARCC ADMINISTRATION
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS GRADE 6 - PERCENTAGES

	
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

COMPARISON OF TEANECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ SUBGROUP SPRING 2016, SPRING 2017 & SPRING 2018 PARCC ADMINISTRATION
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS GRADE 7 - PERCENTAGES

	
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

COMPARISON OF TEANECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ SUBGROUP SPRING 2016, SPRING 2017 & SPRING 2018 PARCC ADMINISTRATION
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS GRADE 8 - PERCENTAGES

	
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

COMPARISON OF TEANECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ SUBGROUP SPRING 2016, SPRING 2017 & SPRING 2018 PARCC ADMINISTRATION
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS GRADE 9 - PERCENTAGES

	
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

COMPARISON OF TEANECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ SUBGROUP SPRING 2016, SPRING 2017 & SPRING 2018 PARCC ADMINISTRATION
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS GRADE 10 - PERCENTAGES

	
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

COMPARISON OF TEANECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ SUBGROUP SPRING 2016 AND SPRING 2017 PARCC ADMINISTRATION ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS GRADE 11 - PERCENTAGES

	
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

SUMMARY: LANGUAGE ARTS

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

NEXT STEPS: LANGUAGE ARTS

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

NEXT STEPS: LANGUAGE ARTS

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
MATHEMATICS         1 8

25

COMPARISON OF TEANECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ SPRING 2016, SPRING 2017 & SPRING 2018 PARCC ADMINISTRATION MATHEMATICS - PERCENTAGES

26
*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.

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

MATHEMATICS

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

	

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

MATHEMATICS DISTRICT'S COHORT ANALYSIS
2016 - 2018

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

MATHEMATICS

PARCC COMPARISON BY SCHOOL 2016 - 2018

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

MATHEMATICS

PARCC COMPARISON BY SCHOOL 2016 - 2018

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

MATHEMATICS

PARCC COMPARISON BY SCHOOL 2016 - 2018

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

MATHEMATICS

PARCC COMPARISON OF HIGH SCHOOL TO STATE 2016 – 2018 ALGEBRA I

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

MATHEMATICS

PARCC COMPARISON OF HIGH SCHOOL TO STATE 2016 – 2018 GEOMETRY

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

MATHEMATICS

PARCC COMPARISON OF HIGH SCHOOL TO STATE 2016 – 2018 ALGEBRA II

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

COMPARISON OF TEANECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ SUBGROUP SPRING 2016, SPRING 2017 & SPRING 2018 PARCC GRADE 3 MATHEMATICS

	
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

COMPARISON OF TEANECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ SUBGROUP SPRING 2016, SPRING 2017 & SPRING 2018 PARCC GRADE 4 MATHEMATICS

	
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

COMPARISON OF TEANECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ SUBGROUP SPRING 2016, SPRING 2017 & SPRING 2018 PARCC GRADE 5 MATHEMATICS

	
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

COMPARISON OF TEANECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ SUBGROUP SPRING 2016, SPRING 2017 & SPRING 2018 PARCC GRADE 6 MATHEMATICS

	
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

COMPARISON OF TEANECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ SUBGROUP SPRING 2016, SPRING 2017 & SPRING 2018 PARCC GRADE 7 MATHEMATICS

	
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

COMPARISON OF TEANECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ SUBGROUP SPRING 2016, SPRING 2017 & SPRING 2018 PARCC GRADE 8 MATHEMATICS

	
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

COMPARISON OF TEANECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ SUBGROUP SPRING 2016, SPRING 2017 & SPRING 2018 PARCC ALGEBRA I

	
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

COMPARISON OF TEANECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ SUBGROUP SPRING 2016, SPRING 2017 & SPRING 2018 PARCC GEOMETRY

	
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

COMPARISON OF TEANECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ SUBGROUP SPRING 2016, SPRING 2017 & SPRING 2018 PARCC ALGEBRA II

	
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

SUMMARY: MATHEMATICS

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

SUMMARY: MATHEMATICS

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

NEXT STEPS: MATHEMATICS

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

NEXT STEPS: MATHEMATICS

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
LOOKING AHEAD         1 9

49

SPRING 2019 STATE ASSESSMENT NAME, 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

ELA UNITS AND TESTING TIME

51

MATHEMATICS UNITS AND TESTING TIME

52

53