parcc results: spring 2015 and spring 2016 docs/2016 parcc... · 2017-02-22 · spring 2015 and...

Measuring

College and

Career

Readiness

PARCC RESULTS:

SPRING 2015 AND SPRING 2016

PATERSON PUBLIC SCHOOLS

OCTOBER 2016

JERON T. CAMPBELL, ED.L.D.

CHIEF DATA , ACCOUNTABILIT Y AND TECHNOLOGY OFFICER

1

To share Paterson’s district and school level state assessment

results.

To build data literacy and use in our schools, central office,

and community.

OBJECTIVES

2

Schools can get a better picture of how to improve learning

for all students by gathering, analyzing, and utilizing data

more effectively.

Data should be used to inform and drive decisions and

instruction.

The facts are always friendly. Ideally district staff within and

across schools operate in a spirit of collaboration, not

competition. Collective improvement is the goal.

GENERAL POINTS REGARDING DATA

3

2016 marks the 2nd administration of the Partnership for

Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)

and the first opportunity to compare year-to-year results as

the following slides will show.

Students took PARCC English Language Arts and Literacy

Assessments (ELA/L) in grades 3 – 11.

Students took PARCC Mathematics Assessments in grades 3 –

8 and End of Course Assessments in Algebra I, Geometry, and

Algebra II.

NEW JERSEY’S STATEWIDE

ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

4

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

PARCC PERFORMANCE LEVELS

5

COMPARISON OF NEW JERSEY’S

SPRING 2015 AND SPRING 2016 PARCC ADMINISTRATIONS

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY

Not Yet

Meeting

Expectations

(Level 1)

Partially Meeting

Expectations

(Level 2)

Approaching

Expectations

(Level 3)

Meeting

Expectations

(Level 4)

Exceeding

Expectations

(Level 5)

% Change in

Level 1 and

Level 2

% Change in

Level 4 and

Level 5

(College and

Career Ready)

2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016

Grade 3 15.1% 13.5% 17.8% 16.0% 23.7% 23.0% 38.6% 41.3% 4.9% 6.2% 3.4% 4.1%

Grade 4 7.8% 8.2% 14.5% 13.5% 26.6% 24.8% 39.4% 40.8% 11.7% 12.7% 0.6% 2.4%

Grade 5 7.2% 6.7% 15.1% 14.7% 26.1% 25.3% 45.1% 46.4% 6.4% 6.9% 0.9% 1.7%

Grade 6 7.9% 7.5% 15.5% 14.1% 27.8% 26.2% 39.7% 41.3% 9.1% 11.0% 1.9% 3.5%

Grade 7 10.8% 9.5% 14.5% 12.5% 23.1% 21.6% 33.9% 35.6% 17.7% 20.7% 3.3% 4.7%

Grade 8 11.5% 10.1% 14.6% 13.0% 22.3% 21.7% 39.1% 40.7% 12.5% 14.5% 3.0% 3.6%

Grade 9 17.6% 12.9% 19.0% 15.0% 23.6% 23.1% 30.3% 35.8% 9.5% 13.2% 8.7% 9.2%

Grade 10 25.3% 20.9% 17.7% 14.2% 20.3% 20.4% 25.6% 31.0% 11.0% 13.4% 7.8% 7.7%

Grade 11* 16.7% 18.5% 18.7% 18.1% 23.5% 23.3% 30.1% 31.7% 10.9% 8.4% 1.1% 0.9%

*Grade 11 does not include students who took an AP/IB test.

Notes: Data shown is preliminary. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

6

COMPARISON OF NEW JERSEY’S


MATHEMATICS

Not Yet Meeting

Expectations

(Level 1)

Partially Meeting

Expectations

(Level 2)

Approaching

Expectations

(Level 3)

Meeting

Expectations

(Level 4)

Exceeding

Expectations

(Level 5)

% Change in

Level 1 and

Level 2

% Change in

Level 4 and

Level 5

(College and

Career Ready) 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016

Grade 3 8.3% 8.1% 18.5% 15.9% 28.3% 24.3% 36.9% 39.0% 8.0% 12.7% 2.8% 6.8%

Grade 4 7.2% 8.0% 21.9% 18.6% 30.3% 26.8% 36.3% 41.2% 4.3% 5.4% 2.5% 5.9%

Grade 5 6.1% 6.2% 20.7% 18.3% 32.1% 28.2% 34.9% 38.4% 6.1% 8.8% 2.3% 6.2%

Grade 6 7.6% 8.9% 21.4% 19.1% 30.2% 29.1% 34.8% 35.6% 6.0% 7.3% 1.0% 2.2%

Grade 7 7.7% 9.0% 22.3% 20.1% 33.3% 32.3% 33.0% 33.5% 3.8% 5.2% 0.9% 1.9%

Grade 8* 21.9% 21.5% 26.2% 25.3% 28.4% 27.5% 23.0% 24.9% 0.5% 0.7% 1.3% 2.1%

Algebra I 13.8% 12.8% 25.3% 21.3% 25.0% 24.8% 32.9% 37.3% 3.1% 3.9% 5.0% 5.2%

Algebra II 31.7% 33.5% 24.5% 22.6% 19.9% 18.8% 22.3% 22.7% 1.6% 2.4% 0.1% 1.1%

Geometry 12.4% 10.5% 35.6% 31.1% 29.7% 31.4% 19.5% 23.2% 2.9% 3.8% 6.3% 4.6%

*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.


7

Students Tested

Year to Year Increase 2016 2015

Grade 3 99,045 95,227 3,818

Grade 4 96,823 93,769 3,054

Grade 5 95,760 94,599 1,161

Grade 6 96,896 92,578 4,318

Grade 7 95,979 90,227 5,752

Grade 8 94,266 88,421 5,845

Grade 9 93,830 81,574 12,256

Grade 10 84,903 71,659 13,244

Grade 11* 68,862 61,768 7,094

TOTAL 826,364 769,822 56,542

COMPARISON OF NEW JERSEY STUDENTS TESTED




Note: Data shown is preliminary. “Students Tested” represents individual valid test scores for English Language Arts/Literacy.

8

Students Tested


Grade 3 99,846 95,932 3,914

Grade 4 97,620 94,484 3,136

Grade 5 96,449 95,293 1,156

Grade 6 97,546 93,128 4,418

Grade 7 93,114 87,300 5,814

Grade 8* 60,768 58,078 2,690

Algebra I 106,118 91,740 14,378

Algebra II 74,643 58,026 16,617

Geometry 84,589 71,137 13,452

TOTAL 810,693 745,118 65,575

COMPARISON OF NEW JERSEY STUDENTS TESTED


MATHEMATICS

*Approximately 30,000 New Jersey students in grade 8 participated in the PARCC Algebra I assessment in place of the 8th grade Math

assessment.

Notes: Data shown is preliminary. “Students Tested” represents individual valid test scores for Mathematics.

9

COMPARISON OF PATERSON’S



Not Yet

Meeting

Expectations

(Level 1)

Partially Meeting

Expectations

(Level 2)

Approaching

Expectations

(Level 3)

Meeting

Expectations

(Level 4)

Exceeding

Expectations

(Level 5)

% Change in

Level 1 and

Level 2

% Change in

Level 4 and

Level 5

(College and

Career Ready)

2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016

Grade 3 32.3% 31.6% 28.9% 23.7% 23.1% 23.2% 15.2% 20.3% 0.5% 1.2% 5.9% 5.8%

Grade 4 19.2% 20.8% 28.0% 26.1% 32.0% 29.7% 19.0% 20.8% 1.8% 2.6% 0.3% 2.6%

Grade 5 17.9% 20.4% 28.0% 27.6% 29.7% 29.5% 23.5% 21.5% 0.9% 1.1% 2.1% 1.8%

Grade 6 18.0% 19.9% 25.9% 23.1% 33.2% 29.6% 21.0% 24.1% 1.8% 3.3% 0.9% 4.6%

Grade 7 21.8% 21.1% 19.5% 20.7% 27.3% 28.0% 24.8% 24.3% 6.6% 6.0% 0.5% 1.1%

Grade 8 23.4% 23.2% 20.7% 17.5% 26.1% 22.7% 26.2% 31.9% 3.6% 4.7% 3.4% 6.8%

Grade 9 44.0% 38.0% 24.3% 26.0% 20.1% 21.3% 11.2% 13.4% 0.4% 1.3% 4.3% 3.1%

Grade 10 54.8% 51.3% 21.6% 18.5% 14.5% 16.8% 8.7% 12.4% 0.5% 1.0% 6.6% 4.2%

Grade 11* 41.6% 32.9% 27.8% 23.4% 20.1% 21.9% 10.1% 20.4% 0.5% 1.4% 13.1% 11.2%



10

COMPARISON OF PATERSON’S


MATHEMATICS

Not Yet Meeting

Expectations

(Level 1)

Partially Meeting

Expectations

(Level 2)

Approaching

Expectations

(Level 3)

Meeting

Expectations

(Level 4)

Exceeding

Expectations

(Level 5)

% Change in

Level 1 and

Level 2

% Change in

Level 4 and

Level 5

(College and

Career Ready) 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016

Grade 3 16.2% 18.0% 31.0% 26.7% 31.9% 26.8% 18.9% 25.2% 2.0% 3.3% 2.5% 7.6%

Grade 4 14.8% 18.8% 36.2% 31.4% 30.3% 26.2% 17.9% 21.9% 0.7% 1.7% 0.8% 5.0%

Grade 5 12.3% 17.6% 32.7% 32.3% 34.4% 29.6% 19.5% 18.2% 1.1% 2.2% 4.9% 0.2%

Grade 6 16.1% 21.3% 36.7% 30.6% 30.0% 29.2% 16.0% 16.6% 1.3% 2.3% 0.9% 1.6%

Grade 7 15.1% 18.2% 36.8% 32.6% 30.6% 31.8% 16.9% 16.5% 0.6% 0.8% 1.1% 0.2%

Grade 8* 34.2% 39.3% 33.2% 30.8% 22.0% 19.8% 10.2% 9.7% 0.3% 0.3% 2.7% 0.5%

Algebra I 25.2% 26.3% 36.6% 33.7% 21.6% 23.4% 15.5% 16.1% 1.1% 0.5% 1.8% 0.0%

Algebra II 70.2% 66.3% 23.5% 23.0% 5.2% 8.6% 1.0% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 4.4% 1.1%

Geometry 31.5% 30.0% 55.5% 51.5% 12.0% 14.3% 1.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.3% 5.5% 3.3%

*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.


11

2016 PARCC

School Level Results


12

Grade 3

% >=

Level 4

Grade 4

% >=

Level 4

Grade 5

% >=

Level 4

Grade 6

% >=

Level 4

Grade 7

% >=

Level 4

Grade 8

% >=

Level 4

Grade 9

% >=

Level 4

Grade 10

% >=

Level 4

Grade 11

% >=

Level 4

District 21.5% 23.4% 22.5% 27.4% 30.3% 36.6% 14.7% 13.4% 21.8%

School 1 46.7% 51.5% 44.4%

School 2 15.1% 11.9% 12.7% 42.1% 52.5% 65.1%

School 3 24.4% 10.7% 25.0% 23.4% 33.3% 53.3%

School 4 7.4% 15.8% 3.9% 11.7% 23.8% 31.1%

School 5 26.4% 28.2% 22.4% 31.6%

School 6 3.9% 5.7% 8.0% 9.8% 12.5% 17.1%

School 7 9.6% 32.3% 18.7% 30.9%

School 8 3.1% 11.8% 7.8% 8.1% 11.8% 16.2%

PATERSON PUBLIC SCHOOL’S

2016 SPRING PARCC SCHOOL- & GRADE-LEVEL OUTCOMES


13

Middle grades

Grade 3

% >=

Level 4

Grade 4

% >=

Level 4

Grade 5

% >=

Level 4

Grade 6

% >=

Level 4

Grade 7

% >=

Level 4

Grade 8

% >=

Level 4

Grade 9

% >=

Level 4

Grade 10

% >=

Level 4

Grade 11

% >=

Level 4

District 21.5% 23.4% 22.5% 27.4% 30.3% 36.6% 14.7% 13.4% 21.8%

School 9 29.2% 26.9% 34.3% 45.5% 48.1% 68.9%

School 10 12.7% 8.9% 19.0% 15.9% 19.4% 16.7%

School 11 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

School 12 13.5% 7.2% 8.0% 2.7% 6.1% 19.6%

School 13 14.0% 22.0% 32.0% 28.2% 28.3% 26.8%

School 14 32.4% 14.0%

School 15 21.1% 14.2% 14.3%

School 18 10.2% 21.8% 21.5% 16.5% 33.3% 42.5%




14

Newcomers school

Grade 3

% >=

Level 4

Grade 4

% >=

Level 4

Grade 5

% >=

Level 4

Grade 6

% >=

Level 4

Grade 7

% >=

Level 4

Grade 8

% >=

Level 4

Grade 9

% >=

Level 4

Grade 10

% >=

Level 4

Grade 11

% >=

Level 4

District 21.5% 23.4% 22.5% 27.4% 30.3% 36.6% 14.7% 13.4% 21.8%

School 19 48.4% 62.9%

School 20 8.1% 5.1% 18.2% 24.4% 15.8% 15.6%

School 21 9.3% 4.0% 6.9% 9.7% 16.9% 9.0%

School 24 13.0% 27.6% 33.0% 36.6% 28.2% 60.0%

School 25 19.5% 18.9% 23.4% 48.1% 42.2% 35.9%

School 26 31.3% 28.3% 21.3% 30.5% 34.7% 48.1%

School 27 31.8% 36.1% 30.0% 27.9% 29.6%

School 28 100.0% 100.0% 97.2% 97.4% 97.4% 96.2%




15

Contrast with others

Grade

3 %

>=

Level 4

Grade 4

% >=

Level 4

Grade 5

% >=

Level 4

Grade 6

% >=

Level 4

Grade 7

% >=

Level 4

Grade 8

% >=

Level 4

Grade 9

% >=

Level 4

Grade 10

% >=

Level 4

Grade 11

% >=

Level 4

District 21.5% 23.4% 22.5% 27.4% 30.3% 36.6% 14.7% 13.4% 21.8%

School 29 25.0% 39.3%

School AHA 48.1% 59.3% 57.1% 58.7% 69.8% 69.8%

School DBTA 7.1% 28.5% 34.5%

School EWK 7.8%

School MLK 25.7% 15.1% 10.9% 16.1% 16.4% 17.6%

School NRC 22.2% 22.0% 25.1%

School NSW 20.0% 17.4% 38.1% 80.0% 75.9% 71.4%

School RC 31.7% 39.3%




16

Increasing

Grade

3 %

>=

Level 4

Grade 4

% >=

Level 4

Grade 5

% >=

Level 4

Grade 6

% >=

Level 4

Grade 7

% >=

Level 4

Grade 8

% >=

Level 4

Grade 9

% >=

Level 4

Grade 10

% >=

Level 4

Grade 11

% >=

Level 4

District 21.5% 23.4% 22.5% 27.4% 30.3% 36.6% 14.7% 13.4% 21.8%

School STRIVE 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

School ULA 8.0% 5.3%

School YMA 7.1% 11.8% 10.0%

School ALT HS 0.0% 2.0% 0.0%

School CAHTS 13.9% 18.4% 31.6%

School GoPA 11.2% 12.6% 20.7%

School SoIT 8.2% 4.3% 18.2%

School RPS 52.7% 33.8% 57.6%




17

Increasing

Grade 3

% >=

Level 4

Grade 4

% >=

Level 4

Grade 5

% >=

Level 4

Grade 6

% >=

Level 4

Grade 7

% >=

Level 4

Grade 8

% >=

Level 4

Grade 9

% >=

Level 4

Grade 10

% >=

Level 4

Grade 11

% >=

Level 4

District 21.5% 23.4% 22.5% 27.4% 30.3% 36.6% 14.7% 13.4% 21.8%

School GMA 26.8% 4.8% 6.5%

School INT’L 29.1% 16.2% 14.9%

School

HARP 35.8% 47.1% 46.3%

School

PANTHER 19.2% 10.0% 20.0%

School ACT 0.0% 4.2% 7.1%

School BTMF 5.0% 5.8% 15.2%

School SET 8.0% 12.2% 33.0%

School STEM 15.5% 14.4% 26.0%




18

Low, Increasing

Grade 3

% >=

Level 4

Grade 4

% >=

Level 4

Grade 5

% >=

Level 4

Grade 6

% >=

Level 4

Grade 7

% >=

Level 4

Grade 8

% >=

Level 4

Algebra I

% >=

Level 4

Algebra II

% >=

Level 4

Geometry

% >=

Level 4

District 28.5% 23.7% 20.5% 18.9% 17.3% 10.1% 16.6% 2.1% 4.2%

School 1 66.7% 50.0%

School 2 29.6% 15.3% 12.5% 13.6% 25.0% 6.5% 83.3%

School 3 24.4% 19.6% 23.5% 23.4% 25.6% 9.7% 42.9%

School 4 17.6% 21.1% 9.3% 5.0% 14.3% 0.0% 11.1%

School 5 29.4% 40.2% 20.2% 27.9%

School 6 5.8% 5.9% 5.9% 2.0% 3.0% 8.3%

School 7 9.4% 14.5% 5.3% 0.0% 41.2%

School 8 19.7% 17.3% 7.7% 10.6% 8.3% 7.9% 66.7%



MATHEMATICS

19

Early grades

Grade 3

% >=

Level 4

Grade 4

% >=

Level 4

Grade 5

% >=

Level 4

Grade 6

% >=

Level 4

Grade 7

% >=

Level 4

Grade 8

% >=

Level 4

Algebra I

% >=

Level 4

Algebra II

% >=

Level 4

Geometry

% >=

Level 4

District 28.5% 23.7% 20.5% 18.9% 17.3% 10.1% 16.6% 2.1% 4.2%

School 9 29.0% 25.5% 28.8% 26.4% 29.4% 15.9% 69.7%

School 10 31.8% 10.2% 21.7% 6.7% 10.8% 1.4% 0.0%

School 11 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

School 12 11.5% 2.9% 2.0% 5.3% 1.5% 23.4%

School 13 16.0% 24.0% 22.0% 12.2% 27.3% 0.0% 53.3%

School 14 61.1% 15.4%

School 15 23.3% 20.4% 16.7%

School 18 18.4% 21.6% 14.0% 6.1% 16.1% 20.0% 65.0%



MATHEMATICS

20

Algebra 1 effect

Grade 3

% >=

Level 4

Grade 4

% >=

Level 4

Grade 5

% >=

Level 4

Grade 6

% >=

Level 4

Grade 7

% >=

Level 4

Grade 8

% >=

Level 4

Algebra I

% >=

Level 4

Algebra II

% >=

Level 4

Geometry

% >=

Level 4

District 28.5% 23.7% 20.5% 18.9% 17.3% 10.1% 16.6% 2.1% 4.2%

School 19 67.7% 43.8%

School 20 8.0% 16.9% 7.0% 11.6% 10.0% 6.7%

School 21 11.7% 0.0% 0.0% 4.1% 2.6% 3.8% 16.7%

School 24 30.1% 21.3% 27.8% 17.1% 22.2% 34.7%

School 25 17.5% 26.7% 31.3% 30.8% 19.8% 10.7% 53.8%

School 26 19.7% 34.0% 18.2% 11.9% 28.6% 7.1% 38.5%

School 27 44.9% 38.1% 31.4% 38.9% 23.5%

School 28 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 97.4% 100.0% 96.1%



MATHEMATICS

21

All Algebra 1

Grade 3

% >=

Level 4

Grade 4

% >=

Level 4

Grade 5

% >=

Level 4

Grade 6

% >=

Level 4

Grade 7

% >=

Level 4

Grade 8

% >=

Level 4

Algebra I

% >=

Level 4

Algebra II

% >=

Level 4

Geometry

% >=

Level 4

District 28.5% 23.7% 20.5% 18.9% 17.3% 10.1% 16.6% 2.1% 4.2%

School 29 23.1% 25.0%

School AHA 59.3% 49.2% 50.8% 43.8% 41.3% 23.1% 76.9%

School DBTA 18.2% 12.9% 7.2% 42.3%

School EWK 7.7%

School MLK 24.7% 12.6% 12.1% 19.4% 9.6% 4.8% 41.7%

School NRC 9.2% 11.7% 10.6% 25.5%

School NSW 44.0% 30.4% 42.9% 60.0% 55.2% 25.0% 100.0%

School RC 55.3% 42.6%



MATHEMATICS

22

Algebra 1 effect

Grade 3

% >=

Level 4

Grade 4

% >=

Level 4

Grade 5

% >=

Level 4

Grade 6

% >=

Level 4

Grade 7

% >=

Level 4

Grade 8

% >=

Level 4

Algebra I

% >=

Level 4

Algebra II

% >=

Level 4

Geometry

% >=

Level 4

District 28.5% 23.7% 20.5% 18.9% 17.3% 10.1% 16.6% 2.1% 4.2%

School

STRIVE 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

School ULA 32.0% 10.5%

School YMA 7.1% 0.0% 0.0%

School ALT

HS 0.0% 1.0% 0.0%

School

CAHTS 3.3% 1.0% 1.7%

School GoPA 4.6% 2.0% 0.6%

School SoIT 8.9% 3.5% 1.1%

School RPS 11.9% 2.7% 4.7%



MATHEMATICS

23

Math a challenge for many

Grade 3

% >=

Level 4

Grade 4

% >=

Level 4

Grade 5

% >=

Level 4

Grade 6

% >=

Level 4

Grade 7

% >=

Level 4

Grade 8

% >=

Level 4

Algebra I

% >=

Level 4

Algebra II

% >=

Level 4

Geometry

% >=

Level 4

District 28.5% 23.7% 20.5% 18.9% 17.3% 10.1% 16.6% 2.1% 4.2%

School GMA 5.3% 4.8% 8.5%

School INT’L 10.5% 1.1% 10.5%

School HARP 19.0% 11.3% 16.4%

School

PANTHER 11.1% 4.3% 0.0%

School ACT 0.0% 0.0% 0.8%

School BTMF 4.5% 0.0% 0.9%

School SET 1.7% 0.0% 0.9%

School STEM 18.2% 3.8% 5.3%



MATHEMATICS

24

ELA Grade 3

% >=

Level 4

Grade 4

% >=

Level 4

Grade 5

% >=

Level 4

Grade 6

% >=

Level 4

Grade 7

% >=

Level 4

Grade 8

% >=

Level 4

Grade 9

% >=

Level 4

Grade 10

% >=

Level 4

Grade 11

% >=

Level 4

District 21.5% 23.4% 22.5% 27.4% 30.3% 36.6% 14.7% 13.4% 21.8%

MATH Grade 3

% >=

Level 4

Grade 4

% >=

Level 4

Grade 5

% >=

Level 4

Grade 6

% >=

Level 4

Grade 7

% >=

Level 4

Grade 8

% >=

Level 4

Algebra I

% >=

Level 4

Algebra II

% >=

Level 4

Geometry

% >=

Level 4

District 28.5% 23.7% 20.5% 18.9% 17.3% 10.1% 16.6% 2.1% 4.2%



ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY AND MATHEMATICS

25

PARCC

Year to Year Results

2015 and 2016


26

Students Tested

Difference 2016 2015

Grade 3 2,020 1,988 32

Grade 4 1,948 1,813 135

Grade 5 1,836 1,713 123

Grade 6 1,735 1,665 70

Grade 7 1,752 1,703 49

Grade 8 1,826 1,699 127

Grade 9 1,589 1,061 528

Grade 10 1,411 1,106 305

Grade 11* 1,405 972 433

TOTAL 15,522 13,720 1,802

COMPARISON OF PATERSON PUBLIC SCHOOL’S

STUDENTS TESTED




Note: “Students Tested” represents individual valid test scores for English Language Arts/Literacy.

27

Students Tested


Grade 3 2,073 2,028 45

Grade 4 2,003 1,867 136

Grade 5 1,892 1,772 120

Grade 6 1,821 1,724 97

Grade 7 1,811 1,748 63

Grade 8* 1,509 1,495 14

Algebra I 2,062 1,494 568

Algebra II 690 820 580

Geometry 1,438 1,096 342

TOTAL 17,315 16,059 1,256


STUDENTS TESTED


MATHEMATICS

*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: “Students Tested” represents individual valid test scores for Mathematics.

28



GRADE LEVEL



Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

29

2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 20162015-2016

+/-

Grade 3 32.3% 31.6% 28.9% 23.7% 23.1% 23.2% 15.2% 20.3% 0.5% 1.2% 15.7% 21.5% 5.8%

Grade 4 19.2% 20.8% 28.0% 26.1% 32.0% 29.7% 19.0% 20.8% 1.8% 2.6% 20.8% 23.4% 2.6%

Grade 5 17.9% 20.4% 28.0% 27.6% 29.7% 29.5% 23.5% 21.5% 0.9% 1.1% 24.4% 22.6% -1.8%

Grade 6 18.0% 19.9% 25.9% 23.1% 33.2% 29.6% 21.0% 24.1% 1.8% 3.3% 22.8% 27.4% 4.6%

Grade 7 21.8% 21.1% 19.5% 20.7% 27.3% 28.0% 24.8% 24.3% 6.6% 6.0% 31.4% 30.3% -1.1%

Grade 8 23.4% 23.2% 20.7% 17.5% 26.1% 22.7% 26.2% 31.9% 3.6% 4.7% 29.8% 36.6% 6.8%

Grade 9 44.0% 38.0% 24.3% 26.0% 20.1% 21.3% 11.2% 13.4% 0.4% 1.3% 11.6% 14.7% 3.1%

Grade 10 54.8% 51.3% 21.6% 18.5% 14.5% 16.8% 8.7% 12.4% 0.5% 1.0% 9.2% 13.4% 4.2%

Grade 11* 41.6% 32.9% 27.8% 23.4% 20.1% 21.9% 10.1% 20.4% 0.5% 1.4% 10.6% 21.8% 11.2%

Exceeding

Expectations

(Level 5)

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

Approaching

Expectations

(Level 3)

Meeting

Expectations

(Level 4)

Not Yet Meeting

Expectations

(Level 1)

Partially Meeting

Expectations

(Level 2)



GRADE/COURSE LEVEL

MATHEMATICS

*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.

30

2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 20162015-2016

+/-

Grade 3 16.2% 18.0% 31.0% 26.7% 31.9% 26.8% 18.9% 25.2% 2.0% 3.3% 20.9% 28.5% 7.6%

Grade 4 14.8% 18.8% 36.2% 31.4% 30.3% 26.2% 17.9% 21.9% 0.7% 1.7% 18.6% 23.6% 5.0%

Grade 5 12.3% 17.6% 32.7% 32.3% 34.4% 29.6% 19.5% 18.2% 1.1% 2.2% 20.6% 20.4% -0.2%

Grade 6 16.1% 21.3% 36.7% 30.6% 30.0% 29.2% 16.0% 16.6% 1.3% 2.3% 17.3% 18.9% 1.6%

Grade 7 15.1% 18.2% 36.8% 32.6% 30.6% 31.8% 16.9% 16.5% 0.6% 0.8% 17.5% 17.3% -0.2%

Grade 8 34.2% 39.3% 33.2% 30.8% 22.0% 19.8% 10.2% 9.7% 0.3% 0.3% 10.5% 10.0% -0.5%

Algebra I 25.2% 26.3% 36.6% 33.7% 21.6% 23.4% 15.5% 16.1% 1.1% 0.5% 16.6% 16.6% 0.0%

Algebra II 70.2% 66.3% 23.5% 23.0% 5.2% 8.6% 1.0% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.1% 1.1%

Geometry 31.5% 30.0% 55.5% 51.5% 12.0% 14.3% 1.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.3% 1.0% 4.3% 3.3%

Not Yet Meeting

Expectations

(Level 1)

Partially Meeting

Expectations

(Level 2)

Approaching

Expectations

(Level 3)

Meeting

Expectations

(Level 4)

Exceeding

Expectations

(Level 5)

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

31

2015-2016 PARCC RESULTS

DISTRICT SUB-GROUP AGGREGATE REPORT

GRADE 3-8

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS / LITERACY

# of Valid

Scores

Level 1

Did Not Yet Meet

Expectations

Level 2

Partially Met

Expectations

Level 3

Approached

Expectations

Level 4

Met

Expectations

Level 5

Exceeded

Expectations

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

# of Valid

Scores

Level 1

Did Not Yet Meet

Expectations

Level 2

Partially Met

Expectations

Level 3

Approached

Expectations

Level 4

Met

Expectations

Level 5

Exceeded

Expectations

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

# # # # # # % # # # # # # % %

PARCC 3,661,178 474,771 707,896 1,001,766 1,243,843 232,902 40.3% 2,740,396 365,750 498,465 715,543 957,969 202,669 42.4% 2.0%

State 555,243 55,801 85,262 23,733 38,570 57,143 49.6% 578,931 53,671 80,935 137,541 237,419 69,365 53.0% 3.4%

District 10,581 2,367 2,676 3,009 2,267 60 23.9% 11,117 2,557 2,577 3,006 2,635 342 26.8% 2.9%

Female 5,146 863 1,221 1,550 1,343 169 29.4% 5,457 953 1,164 1,597 1,525 218 31.9% 2.6%

Male 5,435 1,504 1,455 1,459 924 93 18.7% 5,660 1,604 1,413 1,409 1,110 124 21.8% 3.1%

Hispanic or Latino 7,453 1,689 1,877 2,137 1,579 171 23.5% 7,889 1,857 1,829 2,137 1,849 217 26.2% 2.7%

Asian 391 50 55 102 155 29 47.1% 459 58 68 120 166 47 46.4% -0.7%

Black or African-American 2,084 525 604 567 347 41 18.6% 2,106 546 555 558 400 47 21.2% 2.6%

White 429 56 96 137 124 16 32.6% 413 61 70 122 137 23 38.7% 6.1%

Two or more races 203 43 41 61 53 5 28.6% 238 29 55 67 79 8 36.6% 8.0%

Students with Disabilities 1,460 857 400 158 44 1 3.1% 1,484 858 398 175 52 1 3.6% 0.5%

504 Plan 266 70 93 64 37 2 14.7% 255 73 68 61 48 5 20.8% 6.1%

Economic Disadvantage 9,486 2,121 2,420 2,702 2,006 237 23.6% 11,111 2,555 2,575 3,005 2,634 342 26.8% 3.1%

2015-2016 %

Increase ≥ Met

or Exceeded

Expectations

Demographic Group

20162015

32



GRADE 3-8

MATHEMATICS

# of Valid

Scores

Level 1

Did Not Yet Meet

Expectations

Level 2

Partially Met

Expectations

Level 3

Approached

Expectations

Level 4

Met

Expectations

Level 5

Exceeded

Expectations

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

# of Valid

Scores

Level 1

Did Not Yet Meet

Expectations

Level 2

Partially Met

Expectations

Level 3

Approached

Expectations

Level 4

Met

Expectations

Level 5

Exceeded

Expectations

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

# # # # # # % # # # # # # % %

PARCC 3,667,917 464,438 943,697 1,092,387 1,032,079 135,316 31.8% 2,658,132 366,885 610,766 731,237 806,314 142,930 35.7% 3.9%

State 524,703 47,254 112,916 1,601 1,776 26,877 39.0% 545,654 52,001 104,523 152,842 197,417 38,871 43.3% 4.3%

District 10,634 1,875 3,658 3,202 1,787 60 17.9% 11,109 2,394 3,407 3,046 2,055 207 20.4% 2.5%

Female 5,151 808 1,713 1,671 908 51 18.6% 5,410 1,001 1,646 1,583 1,071 109 21.8% 3.2%

Male 5,483 1,067 1,945 1,531 879 61 17.1% 5,699 1,393 1,761 1,463 984 98 19.0% 1.8%

Hispanic or Latino 7,589 1,283 2,617 2,343 1,275 71 17.7% 7,983 1,626 2,503 2,229 1,485 140 20.4% 2.6%

Asian 379 31 83 102 141 22 43.0% 452 64 85 114 161 28 41.8% -1.2%

Black or African-American 2,026 485 798 527 208 8 10.7% 2,024 604 676 489 239 16 12.6% 1.9%

White 415 49 106 167 88 5 22.4% 404 72 96 127 97 12 27.0% 4.6%

Two or more races 202 23 51 56 66 6 35.6% 236 26 44 85 70 11 34.3% -1.3%

Students with Disabilities 1,451 538 670 194 49 0 3.4% 1,493 708 550 188 47 0 3.1% -0.2%

504 Plan 264 44 98 91 30 1 11.7% 254 66 85 66 35 2 14.6% 2.8%

Economic Disadvantage 9,236 1,485 3,207 2,840 1,611 93 18.4% 11,103 2,391 3,405 3,046 2,054 207 20.4% 1.9%

2015-2016 %

Increase ≥ Met

or Exceeded

Expectations

Demographic Group

2015 2016

33



GRADE 9-12

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS / LITERACY

# of Valid

Scores

Level 1

Did Not Yet Meet

Expectations

Level 2

Partially Met

Expectations

Level 3

Approached

Expectations

Level 4

Met

Expectations

Level 5

Exceeded

Expectations

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

# of Valid

Scores

Level 1

Did Not Yet Meet

Expectations

Level 2

Partially Met

Expectations

Level 3

Approached

Expectations

Level 4

Met

Expectations

Level 5

Exceeded

Expectations

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

# # # # # # % # # # # # # % %

PARCC 851,213 152,462 162,304 203,669 256,090 76,688 39.1% 613,024 119,265 109,820 142,998 184,080 56,861 39.3% 0.2%

State 218,467 44,617 40,627 488 619 22,441 38.6% 253,854 45,772 40,048 56,029 82,295 29,710 44.1% 5.5%

District 3,139 1,477 767 568 313 30 10.4% 4,405 1,790 1,003 883 674 55 16.5% 6.1%

Female 1,502 593 361 326 214 8 14.8% 2,112 650 492 487 440 43 22.9% 8.1%

Male 1,637 884 406 242 99 6 6.4% 2,293 1,140 511 396 234 12 10.7% 4.3%

Hispanic or Latino 2,115 990 508 386 221 10 10.9% 2,922 1,188 640 587 466 41 17.4% 6.4%

Asian 141 68 34 24 13 2 10.6% 234 90 45 47 48 4 22.2% 11.6%

Black or African-American 721 345 193 126 55 2 7.9% 1,083 451 275 214 135 8 13.2% 5.3%

White 117 53 21 27 16 0 13.7% 137 52 32 29 22 2 17.5% 3.8%

Students with Disabilities 512 366 104 31 11 0 2.1% 730 489 160 64 17 0 2.3% 0.2%

504 Plan 29 13 9 6 1 0 3.4% 47 21 10 11 3 2 10.6% 7.2%

Economic Disadvantage 2,486 1,109 643 465 258 11 10.8% 4,394 1,784 999 882 674 55 16.6% 5.8%

2015-2016 %

Increase ≥ Met

or Exceeded

Expectations

Demographic Group

2015 2016

34



HIGH SCHOOLS MATHEMATICS

ALGEBRA I , ALGEBRA I I , AND GEOMETRY

# of Valid

Scores

Level 1

Did Not Yet Meet

Expectations

Level 2

Partially Met

Expectations

Level 3

Approached

Expectations

Level 4

Met

Expectations

Level 5

Exceeded

Expectations

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

# of Valid

Scores

Level 1

Did Not Yet Meet

Expectations

Level 2

Partially Met

Expectations

Level 3

Approached

Expectations

Level 4

Met

Expectations

Level 5

Exceeded

Expectations

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

# # # # # # % # # # # # # % %

PARCC 872,487 140,973 251,349 237,279 226,119 16,767 27.8% 617,052 114,469 164,310 157,218 165,674 15,381 29.3% 1.5%

State 220,903 39,808 62,719 556 570 5,773 28.4% 265,362 47,434 65,808 66,889 76,150 9,081 32.1% 3.7%

District 3,410 1,298 1,348 497 250 30 7.8% 4,900 1,901 1,758 808 419 14 8.8% 1.0%

Female 1,656 581 683 253 133 6 8.4% 2,375 842 874 442 213 4 9.1% 0.7%

Male 1,754 717 665 244 117 11 7.3% 2,525 1,059 884 366 206 10 8.6% 1.3%

Hispanic or Latino 2,280 854 909 350 161 6 7.3% 3,231 1,224 1,200 536 264 7 8.4% 1.1%

Asian 181 46 59 33 37 6 23.8% 275 77 77 60 58 3 22.2% -1.6%

Black or African-American 773 332 323 82 35 1 4.7% 1,193 536 429 163 64 1 5.4% 0.8%

White 137 51 39 29 14 4 13.1% 166 51 41 43 28 3 18.7% 5.5%

Students with Disabilities 544 319 204 17 4 0 0.7% 737 449 255 27 6 0 0.8% 0.1%

504 Plan 35 15 14 1 4 1 14.3% 56 24 20 10 1 1 3.6% -10.7%

Economic Disadvantage 2,740 1,007 1,101 414 204 14 8.0% 4,890 1,894 1,755 808 419 14 8.9% 0.9%

2015-2016 %

Increase ≥ Met

or Exceeded

Expectations

Demographic Group

2015 2016

35

2015-2016 PARCC

GRADE 3-8 - TOTAL STUDENTS


# % # % # % # % # % # %

Cross-State 2,740,396 741 365,750 13.3% 498,465 18.2% 715,543 26.1% 957,969 35.0% 202,669 7.4% 1,160,638 42.4%

State 578,931 751 53,671 9.3% 80,935 14.0% 137,541 23.8% 237,419 41.0% 69,365 12.0% 306,784 53.0%

District 11,117 727 2,557 23.0% 2,577 23.2% 3,006 27.0% 2,635 23.7% 342 3.1% 2,977 26.8%

ALEXANDER HAMILTON ACAD 355 753 22 6.2% 31 8.7% 87 24.5% 186 52.4% 29 8.2% 215 60.6%

DON BOSCO 581 730 117 20.1% 120 20.7% 178 30.6% 148 25.5% 18 3.1% 166 28.6%

NEW ROBERTO CLEMENTE 583 723 151 25.9% 141 24.2% 156 26.8% 128 22.0% 7 1.2% 135 23.2%

DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING 444 720 120 27.0% 115 25.9% 133 30.0% 73 16.4% 3 0.7% 76 17.1%

NORMAN S. WEIR 151 751 20 13.2% 15 9.9% 37 24.5% 55 36.4% 24 15.9% 79 52.3%

EDWARD KILPATRICK 64 699 33 51.6% 18 28.1% 8 12.5% 5 7.8% 0 0.0% 5 7.8%

URBAN LEADERSHIP 44 717 12 27.3% 12 27.3% 17 38.6% 3 6.8% 0 0.0% 3 6.8%

STRIVE 17 689 10 58.8% 6 35.3% 1 5.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

SINGLE GENDER ACADEMY 51 708 19 37.3% 22 43.1% 5 9.8% 5 9.8% 0 0.0% 5 9.8%

NUMBER 1 81 745 12 14.8% 11 13.6% 19 23.5% 36 44.4% 3 3.7% 39 48.1%

NUMBER 2 307 735 36 11.7% 79 25.7% 97 31.6% 80 26.1% 15 4.9% 95 30.9%

NUMBER 3 284 732 39 13.7% 75 26.4% 92 32.4% 76 26.8% 2 0.7% 78 27.5%NAPIER SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY 398 719 114 28.6% 107 26.9% 115 28.9% 59 14.8% 3 0.8% 62 15.6%

NUMBER 5 487 729 81 16.6% 122 25.1% 155 31.8% 127 26.1% 2 0.4% 129 26.5%

NUMBER 6 ACAD PERF ARTS 272 710 103 37.9% 84 30.9% 61 22.4% 23 8.5% 1 0.4% 24 8.8%

NUMBER 7 244 726 48 19.7% 76 31.1% 64 26.2% 49 20.1% 7 2.9% 56 23.0%

NUMBER 8 378 710 156 41.3% 106 28.0% 79 20.9% 34 9.0% 3 0.8% 37 9.8%

NUMBER 9 797 740 98 12.3% 125 15.7% 246 30.9% 299 37.5% 29 3.6% 328 41.2%

Level 4

Met

Expectations

Level 5

Exceeded

Expectations

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

Number

of Valid

Scores

Average

Scale Score

Level 1

Did Not Yet Meet

Expectations

Level 2

Partially Met

Expectations

Level 3

Approached

Expectations

36

2015-2016 PARCC



# % # % # % # % # % # %

Cross-State 2,740,396 741 365,750 13.3% 498,465 18.2% 715,543 26.1% 957,969 35.0% 202,669 7.4% 1,160,638 42.4%

State 578,931 751 53,671 9.3% 80,935 14.0% 137,541 23.8% 237,419 41.0% 69,365 12.0% 306,784 53.0%

District 11,117 727 2,557 23.0% 2,577 23.2% 3,006 27.0% 2,635 23.7% 342 3.1% 2,977 26.8%

NUMBER 10 329 717 96 29.2% 94 28.6% 89 27.1% 50 15.2% 0 0.0% 50 15.2%

NUMBER 11 144 677 135 93.8% 9 6.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

NUMBER 12 357 710 141 39.5% 99 27.7% 86 24.1% 31 8.7% 0 0.0% 31 8.7%

NUMBER 13 326 726 65 19.9% 90 27.6% 94 28.8% 74 22.7% 3 0.9% 77 23.6%

NUMBER 14 84 730 8 9.5% 29 34.5% 29 34.5% 17 20.2% 1 1.2% 18 21.4%

NUMBER 15 437 719 119 27.2% 115 26.3% 133 30.4% 69 15.8% 1 0.2% 70 16.0%

NUMBER 18 619 727 120 19.4% 162 26.2% 192 31.0% 139 22.5% 6 1.0% 145 23.4%

NUMBER 19 124 757 3 2.4% 11 8.9% 41 33.1% 58 46.8% 11 8.9% 69 55.6%

NUMBER 20 312 712 116 37.2% 80 25.6% 74 23.7% 41 13.1% 1 0.3% 42 13.5%

NUMBER 21 446 706 199 44.6% 127 28.5% 78 17.5% 41 9.2% 1 0.2% 42 9.4%

NUMBER 24 585 733 99 16.9% 130 22.2% 165 28.2% 175 29.9% 16 2.7% 191 32.6%

NUMBER 25 466 732 90 19.3% 92 19.7% 137 29.4% 128 27.5% 19 4.1% 147 31.5%

NUMBER 26 355 733 54 15.2% 93 26.2% 96 27.0% 100 28.2% 12 3.4% 112 31.5%

NUMBER 27 530 733 76 14.3% 122 23.0% 169 31.9% 153 28.9% 10 1.9% 163 30.8%

NUMBER 28 207 795 1 0.5% 1 0.5% 3 1.4% 93 44.9% 109 52.7% 202 97.6%

NUMBER 29 109 730 14 12.8% 32 29.4% 27 24.8% 36 33.0% 0 0.0% 36 33.0%

ROBERTO CLEMENTE 143 737 25 17.5% 25 17.5% 43 30.1% 44 30.8% 6 4.2% 50 35.0%

Level 4

Met

Expectations

Level 5

Exceeded

Expectations

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

Number

of Valid

Scores

Average

Scale Score

Level 1

Did Not Yet Meet

Expectations

Level 2

Partially Met

Expectations

Level 3

Approached

Expectations

37

PARCC YEAR TO YEAR COMPARISON



# % # %

Cross-State 3,661,178 740 1,476,745 40.3% 2,740,396 741 1,160,638 42.4% -920,782 -316,107 2.0%

State 555,243 748 275,531 49.6% 578,931 751 306,784 53.0% 23,688 31,253 3.4%

District 10,581 726 2,529 23.9% 11,117 727 2,977 26.8% 536 448 2.9%

ALEXANDER HAMILTON ACAD 328 746 149 45.4% 355 753 215 60.6% 27 66 15.1%

DON BOSCO 487 730 145 29.8% 581 730 166 28.6% 94 21 -1.2%

NEW ROBERTO CLEMENTE 604 721 110 18.2% 583 723 135 23.2% -21 25 4.9%

DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING 375 724 69 18.4% 444 720 76 17.1% 69 7 -1.3%

NORMAN S. WEIR 154 742 71 46.1% 151 751 79 52.3% -3 8 6.2%

EDWARD KILPATRICK 122 705 9 7.4% 64 699 5 7.8% -58 -4 0.4%

URBAN LEADERSHIP 54 708 1 1.9% 44 717 3 6.8% -10 2 5.0%

STRIVE 11 695 0 0.0% 17 689 0 0.0% 6 0 0.0%

SINGLE GENDER ACADEMY N/A N/A N/A N/A 51 708 5 9.8% N/A

NUMBER 1 67 750 38 56.7% 81 745 39 48.1% 14 1 -8.6%

NUMBER 2 305 733 90 29.5% 307 735 95 30.9% 2 5 1.4%

NUMBER 3 242 729 58 24.0% 284 732 78 27.5% 42 20 3.5%NAPIER SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY 347 709 30 8.6% 398 719 62 15.6% 51 32 6.9%

NUMBER 5 524 727 126 24.0% 487 729 129 26.5% -37 3 2.4%

NUMBER 6 ACAD PERF ARTS 245 704 13 5.3% 272 710 24 8.8% 27 11 3.5%

NUMBER 7 250 721 49 19.6% 244 726 56 23.0% -6 7 3.4%

NUMBER 8 366 714 46 12.6% 378 710 37 9.8% 12 -9 -2.8%

NUMBER 9 822 736 285 34.7% 797 740 328 41.2% -25 43 6.5%

Year to Year

# Testers

≥ Level 4

Year to Year

%

≥ Level 4

Year to Year

# Testers

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

Number

of Valid

Scores

Average

Scale Score

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

Number

of Valid

Scores

Average

Scale Score

38




# % # %

Cross-State 3,661,178 740 1,476,745 40.3% 2,740,396 741 1,160,638 42.4% -920,782 -316,107 2.0%

State 555,243 748 275,531 49.6% 578,931 751 306,784 53.0% 23,688 31,253 3.4%

District 10,581 726 2,529 23.9% 11,117 727 2,977 26.8% 536 448 2.9%

NUMBER 10 311 717 44 14.1% 329 717 50 15.2% 18 6 1.0%

NUMBER 11 145 672 0 0.0% 144 677 0 0.0% -1 0 0.0%

NUMBER 12 315 713 33 10.5% 357 710 31 8.7% 42 -2 -1.8%

NUMBER 13 287 723 53 18.5% 326 726 77 23.6% 39 24 5.2%

NUMBER 14 71 723 8 11.3% 84 730 18 21.4% 13 10 10.2%

NUMBER 15 382 717 54 14.1% 437 719 70 16.0% 55 16 1.9%

NUMBER 18 633 724 119 18.8% 619 727 145 23.4% -14 26 4.6%

NUMBER 19 134 740 45 33.6% 124 757 69 55.6% -10 24 22.1%

NUMBER 20 267 725 66 24.7% 312 712 42 13.5% 45 -24 -11.3%

NUMBER 21 433 713 53 12.2% 446 706 42 9.4% 13 -11 -2.8%

NUMBER 24 565 734 173 30.6% 585 733 191 32.6% 20 18 2.0%

NUMBER 25 454 732 128 28.2% 466 732 147 31.5% 12 19 3.4%

NUMBER 26 360 728 87 24.2% 355 733 112 31.5% -5 25 7.4%

NUMBER 27 498 733 148 29.7% 530 733 163 30.8% 32 15 1.0%

NUMBER 28 174 788 169 97.1% 207 795 202 97.6% 33 33 0.5%

NUMBER 29 114 731 23 20.2% 109 730 36 33.0% -5 13 12.9%

ROBERTO CLEMENTE 132 729 37 28.0% 143 737 50 35.0% 11 13 6.9%

Year to Year

# Testers

≥ Level 4

Year to Year

%

≥ Level 4

Year to Year

# Testers

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

Number

of Valid

Scores

Average

Scale Score

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

Number

of Valid

Scores

Average

Scale Score

39

2015-2016 PARCC


MATHEMATICS

# % # % # % # % # % # %

Cross-State 2,986,161 737 417,583 14.0% 695,118 23.3% 815,676 27.3% 906,892 30.4% 150,892 5.1% 1,057,784 35.4%

State 651,779 743 65,558 10.1% 127,085 19.5% 179,120 27.5% 236,998 36.4% 43,018 6.6% 280,016 43.0%

District 13,171 132 2,936 22.3% 4,102 31.1% 3,528 26.8% 2,388 18.1% 217 1.6% 2,605 19.8%

ALEXANDER HAMILTON ACAD 355 747 19 5.4% 41 11.5% 129 36.3% 155 43.7% 11 3.1% 166 46.8%

DON BOSCO 605 621 174 28.8% 186 30.7% 153 25.3% 89 14.7% 3 0.5% 92 15.2%

NEW ROBERTO CLEMENTE 584 662 126 21.6% 192 32.9% 197 33.7% 68 11.6% 1 0.2% 69 11.8%

DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING 452 719 111 24.6% 155 34.3% 116 25.7% 67 14.8% 3 0.7% 70 15.5%

NORMAN S. WEIR 151 746 11 7.3% 28 18.5% 38 25.2% 68 45.0% 6 4.0% 74 49.0%

EDWARD KILPATRICK 65 704 27 41.5% 24 36.9% 9 13.8% 4 6.2% 1 1.5% 5 7.7%

URBAN LEADERSHIP 44 730 6 13.6% 15 34.1% 13 29.5% 10 22.7% 0 0.0% 10 22.7%

STRIVE 19 691 14 73.7% 5 26.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

SINGLE GENDER ACADEMY 51 715 14 27.5% 21 41.2% 15 29.4% 1 2.0% 0 0.0% 1 2.0%

NUMBER 1 80 746 7 8.8% 15 18.8% 15 18.8% 37 46.3% 6 7.5% 43 53.8%

NUMBER 2 311 728 37 11.9% 110 35.4% 102 32.8% 60 19.3% 2 0.6% 62 19.9%

NUMBER 3 283 732 23 8.1% 79 27.9% 117 41.3% 63 22.3% 1 0.4% 64 22.6%

NAPIER SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY 398 717 103 25.9% 149 37.4% 102 25.6% 44 11.1% 0 0.0% 44 11.1%

NUMBER 5 510 733 67 13.1% 123 24.1% 176 34.5% 134 26.3% 10 2.0% 144 28.2%

NUMBER 6 ACAD PERF ARTS 275 708 108 39.3% 110 40.0% 43 15.6% 14 5.1% 0 0.0% 14 5.1%

NUMBER 7 247 717 64 25.9% 81 32.8% 77 31.2% 25 10.1% 0 0.0% 25 10.1%

NUMBER 8 393 720 89 22.6% 136 34.6% 117 29.8% 49 12.5% 2 0.5% 51 13.0%

NUMBER 9 819 733 94 11.5% 212 25.9% 282 34.4% 221 27.0% 10 1.2% 231 28.2%

Level 4

Met

Expectations

Level 5

Exceeded

Expectations

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

Number

of Valid

Scores

Average

Scale Score

Level 1

Did Not Yet Meet

Expectations

Level 2

Partially Met

Expectations

Level 3

Approached

Expectations

40

2015-2016 PARCC


MATHEMATICS

# % # % # % # % # % # %

Cross-State 2,986,161 737 417,583 14.0% 695,118 23.3% 815,676 27.3% 906,892 30.4% 150,892 5.1% 1,057,784 35.4%

State 651,779 743 65,558 10.1% 127,085 19.5% 179,120 27.5% 236,998 36.4% 43,018 6.6% 280,016 43.0%

District 13,171 132 2,936 22.3% 4,102 31.1% 3,528 26.8% 2,388 18.1% 217 1.6% 2,605 19.8%

NUMBER 10 341 716 103 30.2% 108 31.7% 82 24.0% 45 13.2% 3 0.9% 48 14.1%

NUMBER 11 349 695 194 55.6% 112 32.1% 42 12.0% 1 0.3% 0 0.0% 1 0.3%

NUMBER 12 362 707 141 39.0% 138 38.1% 58 16.0% 25 6.9% 0 0.0% 25 6.9%

NUMBER 13 332 724 75 22.6% 104 31.3% 87 26.2% 61 18.4% 5 1.5% 66 19.9%

NUMBER 14 88 728 18 20.5% 22 25.0% 18 20.5% 28 31.8% 2 2.3% 30 34.1%

NUMBER 15 455 724 92 20.2% 147 32.3% 127 27.9% 82 18.0% 7 1.5% 89 19.6%

NUMBER 18 630 726 91 14.4% 223 35.4% 204 32.4% 108 17.1% 4 0.6% 112 17.8%

NUMBER 19 126 750 2 1.6% 25 19.8% 29 23.0% 65 51.6% 5 4.0% 70 55.6%

NUMBER 20 319 714 89 27.9% 120 37.6% 78 24.5% 32 10.0% 0 0.0% 32 10.0%

NUMBER 21 453 704 194 42.8% 160 35.3% 80 17.7% 18 4.0% 1 0.2% 19 4.2%

NUMBER 24 592 730 87 14.7% 168 28.4% 184 31.1% 144 24.3% 9 1.5% 153 25.8%

NUMBER 25 481 729 65 13.5% 148 30.8% 148 30.8% 114 23.7% 6 1.2% 120 24.9%

NUMBER 26 363 725 70 19.3% 116 32.0% 98 27.0% 79 21.8% 0 0.0% 79 21.8%

NUMBER 27 536 737 58 10.8% 123 22.9% 165 30.8% 170 31.7% 20 3.7% 190 35.4%

NUMBER 28 193 788 2 1.0% 1 0.5% 2 1.0% 101 52.3% 87 45.1% 188 97.4%

NUMBER 29 116 729 17 14.7% 30 25.9% 41 35.3% 28 24.1% 0 0.0% 28 24.1%

ROBERTO CLEMENTE 146 745 12 8.2% 27 18.5% 34 23.3% 62 42.5% 11 7.5% 73 50.0%

Level 4

Met

Expectations

Level 5

Exceeded

Expectations

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

Number

of Valid

Scores

Average

Scale Score

Level 1

Did Not Yet Meet

Expectations

Level 2

Partially Met

Expectations

Level 3

Approached

Expectations

41



MATHEMATICS

# % # %

Cross-State 4,148,380 735 1,315,190 31.7% 2,986,161 737 1,057,784 35.4% -1,162,219 -257,406 3.7%

State 616,443 740 237,430 38.5% 651,779 743 280,016 43.0% 35,336 42,586 4.4%

District 12,128 108 2,147 17.7% 13,171 132 2,605 19.8% 1,043 458 2.1%

ALEXANDER HAMILTON ACAD 328 740 121 36.9% 355 747 166 46.8% 27 45 9.9%

DON BOSCO 504 186177 102 20.2% 605 621 92 15.2% 101 -10 -5.0%

NEW ROBERTO CLEMENTE 626 293766 73 11.7% 584 662 69 11.8% -42 -4 0.2%

DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING 383 725 63 16.4% 452 719 70 15.5% 69 7 -1.0%

NORMAN S. WEIR 155 741 66 42.6% 151 746 74 49.0% -4 8 6.4%

EDWARD KILPATRICK 122 386 7 5.7% 65 704 5 7.7% -57 -2 2.0%

URBAN LEADERSHIP 54 711 0 0.0% 44 730 10 22.7% -10 10 22.7%

STRIVE 8 3178 0 0.0% 19 691 0 0.0% 11 0 0.0%

SINGLE GENDER ACADEMY N/A N/A N/A N/A 51 715 1 2.0% N/A

NUMBER 1 66 743 28 42.4% 80 746 43 53.8% 14 15 11.3%

NUMBER 2 307 730 69 22.5% 311 728 62 19.9% 4 -7 -2.5%

NUMBER 3 241 730 51 21.2% 283 732 64 22.6% 42 13 1.5%

NAPIER SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY 357 713 13 3.6% 398 717 44 11.1% 41 31 7.4%

NUMBER 5 538 731 125 23.2% 510 733 144 28.2% -28 19 5.0%

NUMBER 6 ACAD PERF ARTS 244 711 15 6.1% 275 708 14 5.1% 31 -1 -1.1%

NUMBER 7 255 718 28 11.0% 247 717 25 10.1% -8 -3 -0.9%

NUMBER 8 396 719 44 11.1% 393 720 51 13.0% -3 7 1.9%

NUMBER 9 833 732 202 24.2% 819 733 231 28.2% -14 29 4.0%

Year to Year

# Testers

≥ Level 4

Year to Year

%

≥ Level 4

Year to Year

# Testers

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

Number

of Valid

Scores

Average

Scale Score

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

Number

of Valid

Scores

Average

Scale Score

42



MATHEMATICS

# % # %

Cross-State 4,148,380 735 1,315,190 31.7% 2,986,161 737 1,057,784 35.4% -1,162,219 -257,406 3.7%

State 616,443 740 237,430 38.5% 651,779 743 280,016 43.0% 35,336 42,586 4.4%

District 12,128 108 2,147 17.7% 13,171 132 2,605 19.8% 1,043 458 2.1%

NUMBER 10 320 717 35 10.9% 341 716 48 14.1% 21 13 3.1%

NUMBER 11 292 693 3 1.0% 349 695 1 0.3% 57 -2 -0.7%

NUMBER 12 315 713 24 7.6% 362 707 25 6.9% 47 1 -0.7%

NUMBER 13 289 722 42 14.5% 332 724 66 19.9% 43 24 5.3%

NUMBER 14 71 725 10 14.1% 88 728 30 34.1% 17 20 20.0%

NUMBER 15 404 723 60 14.9% 455 724 89 19.6% 51 29 4.7%

NUMBER 18 642 725 93 14.5% 630 726 112 17.8% -12 19 3.3%

NUMBER 19 139 743 52 37.4% 126 750 70 55.6% -13 18 18.1%

NUMBER 20 268 722 36 13.4% 319 714 32 10.0% 51 -4 -3.4%

NUMBER 21 442 713 30 6.8% 453 704 19 4.2% 11 -11 -2.6%

NUMBER 24 571 731 124 21.7% 592 730 153 25.8% 21 29 4.1%

NUMBER 25 470 728 104 22.1% 481 729 120 24.9% 11 16 2.8%

NUMBER 26 370 719 50 13.5% 363 725 79 21.8% -7 29 8.2%

NUMBER 27 499 735 149 29.9% 536 737 190 35.4% 37 41 5.6%

NUMBER 28 174 784 168 96.6% 193 788 188 97.4% 19 20 0.9%

NUMBER 29 118 727 23 19.5% 116 729 28 24.1% -2 5 4.6%

ROBERTO CLEMENTE 140 743 57 40.7% 146 745 73 50.0% 6 16 9.3%

Year to Year

# Testers

≥ Level 4

Year to Year

%

≥ Level 4

Year to Year

# Testers

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

Number

of Valid

Scores

Average

Scale Score

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

Number

of Valid

Scores

Average

Scale Score

43

2015-2016 PARCC

HIGH SCHOOL - TOTAL STUDENTS


# % # % # % # % # % # %

Cross-State 613,024 737 119,265 19.5% 109,820 17.9% 142,998 23.3% 184,080 30.0% 56,861 9.3% 240,941 39.3%

State 253,854 741 45,772 18.0% 40,048 15.8% 56,029 22.1% 82,295 32.4% 29,710 11.7% 112,005 44.1%

District 4,405 712 1,790 40.6% 1,003 22.8% 883 20.0% 674 15.3% 55 1.2% 729 16.5%

ALTERNATIVE HS / YES ACADEMY 167 684 123 73.7% 36 21.6% 7 4.2% 1 0.6% 0 0.0% 1 0.6%

BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY 391 705 179 45.8% 112 28.6% 68 17.4% 32 8.2% 0 0.0% 32 8.2%

CONSTRUCTION TRADES ACADEMY 380 691 257 67.6% 82 21.6% 27 7.1% 14 3.7% 0 0.0% 14 3.7%

CULINARY ARTS 558 718 178 31.9% 138 24.7% 126 22.6% 110 19.7% 6 1.1% 116 20.8%

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 352 714 141 40.1% 75 21.3% 75 21.3% 60 17.0% 1 0.3% 61 17.3%

GARRETT MORGAN ACADEMY 129 713 42 32.6% 49 38.0% 22 17.1% 15 11.6% 1 0.8% 16 12.4%

GOVERNMENT 569 711 247 43.4% 115 20.2% 123 21.6% 77 13.5% 7 1.2% 84 14.8%

HARP ACADEMY 189 740 27 14.3% 29 15.3% 52 27.5% 70 37.0% 11 5.8% 81 42.9%

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 519 704 269 51.8% 101 19.5% 97 18.7% 49 9.4% 3 0.6% 52 10.0%

INTERNATIONAL HIGH 345 721 99 28.7% 91 26.4% 83 24.1% 63 18.3% 9 2.6% 72 20.9%

ROSA PARKS ARTS HIGH 205 746 13 6.3% 32 15.6% 61 29.8% 85 41.5% 14 6.8% 99 48.3%

SCHOOL OF EARTH AND SPACE 147 713 59 40.1% 36 24.5% 28 19.0% 22 15.0% 2 1.4% 24 16.3%

STEM 420 719 129 30.7% 101 24.0% 113 26.9% 76 18.1% 1 0.2% 77 18.3%

Level 4

Met

Expectations

Level 5

Exceeded

Expectations

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

Number

of Valid

Scores

Average

Scale Score

Level 1

Did Not Yet Meet

Expectations

Level 2

Partially Met

Expectations

Level 3

Approached

Expectations

44




# % # %

Cross-State 851,213 1433 332,778 39.1% 613,024 737 240,941 39.3% -238,189 -91,837 0.2%

State 218,467 1184 84,380 38.6% 253,854 741 112,005 44.1% 35,387 27,625 5.5%

District 3,139 1065 327 10.4% 4,405 712 729 16.5% 1,266 402 6.1%

ALTERNATIVE HS / YES ACADEMY 97 710 3 3.1% 167 684 1 0.6% 70 -2 -2.5%

BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY 281 975 18 6.4% 391 705 32 8.2% 110 14 1.8%

CONSTRUCTION TRADES ACADEMY 257 963 13 5.1% 380 691 14 3.7% 123 1 -1.4%

CULINARY ARTS 426 1076 51 12.0% 558 718 116 20.8% 132 65 8.8%

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 289 989 26 9.0% 352 714 61 17.3% 63 35 8.3%

GARRETT MORGAN ACADEMY N/A N/A N/A N/A 129 713 16 12.4% N/A

GOVERNMENT 438 1095 40 9.1% 569 711 84 14.8% 131 44 5.6%

HARP ACADEMY 82 1724 26 31.7% 189 740 81 42.9% 107 55 11.1%

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 436 1111 44 10.1% 519 704 52 10.0% 83 8 -0.1%

INTERNATIONAL HIGH 241 1480 30 12.4% 345 721 72 20.9% 104 42 8.4%

ROSA PARKS ARTS HIGH 159 1105 35 22.0% 205 746 99 48.3% 46 64 26.3%

SCHOOL OF EARTH AND SPACE 85 1064 2 2.4% 147 713 24 16.3% 62 22 14.0%

STEM 326 1026 39 12.0% 420 719 77 18.3% 94 38 6.4%

Year to Year

# Testers

≥ Level 4

Year to Year

%

≥ Level 4

Year to Year

# Testers

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

Number

of Valid

Scores

Average

Scale Score

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

Number

of Valid

Scores

Average

Scale Score

45

2015-2016 PARCC


MATHEMATICS


# % # % # % # % # % # %

Cross-State 617,052 730 114,469 18.6% 164,310 26.6% 157,218 25.5% 165,674 26.8% 15,381 2.5% 181,055 29.3%

State 265,362 733 47,434 17.9% 65,808 24.8% 66,889 25.2% 76,150 28.7% 9,081 3.4% 85,231 32.1%

District 4,900 708 1,901 38.8% 1,758 35.9% 808 16.5% 419 8.6% 14 0.3% 433 8.8%

ALTERNATIVE HS / YES ACADEMY 195 683 142 72.8% 50 25.6% 2 1.0% 1 0.5% 0 0.0% 1 0.5%

BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY 237 697 119 50.2% 81 34.2% 36 15.2% 1 0.4% 0 0.0% 1 0.4%

CONSTRUCTION TRADES ACADEMY 398 695 215 54.0% 161 40.5% 21 5.3% 1 0.3% 0 0.0% 1 0.3%

CULINARY ARTS 586 700 276 47.1% 219 37.4% 79 13.5% 12 2.0% 0 0.0% 12 2.0%

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 352 699 167 47.4% 142 40.3% 40 11.4% 3 0.9% 0 0.0% 3 0.9%

GARRETT MORGAN ACADEMY 127 712 36 28.3% 60 47.2% 23 18.1% 8 6.3% 0 0.0% 8 6.3%

GOVERNMENT 565 704 223 39.5% 253 44.8% 74 13.1% 15 2.7% 0 0.0% 15 2.7%

HARP ACADEMY 177 721 36 20.3% 67 37.9% 46 26.0% 27 15.3% 1 0.6% 28 15.8%

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 519 703 230 44.3% 199 38.3% 65 12.5% 25 4.8% 0 0.0% 25 4.8%

INTERNATIONAL HIGH 350 709 119 34.0% 137 39.1% 66 18.9% 26 7.4% 2 0.6% 28 8.0%

ROSA PARKS ARTS HIGH 206 713 61 29.6% 71 34.5% 61 29.6% 13 6.3% 0 0.0% 13 6.3%

SCHOOL OF EARTH AND SPACE 144 705 62 43.1% 48 33.3% 26 18.1% 8 5.6% 0 0.0% 8 5.6%

STEM 413 714 116 28.1% 151 36.6% 104 25.2% 42 10.2% 0 0.0% 42 10.2%

Level 4

Met

Expectations

Level 5

Exceeded

Expectations

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

Number

of Valid

Scores

Average

Scale Score

Level 1

Did Not Yet Meet

Expectations

Level 2

Partially Met

Expectations

Level 3

Approached

Expectations

46

2015-2016 PARCC


MATHEMATICS


# % # %

Cross-State 872,487 730 242,886 27.8% 617,052 730 181,055 29.3% -255,435 -61,831 1.5%

State 220,903 730 62,763 28.4% 265,362 733 85,231 32.1% 44,459 22,468 3.7%

District 3,410 708 267 7.8% 4,900 708 433 8.8% 1,490 166 1.0%

ALTERNATIVE HS / YES ACADEMY 54 694 0 0.0% 195 683 1 0.5% 141 1 0.5%

BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY 313 703 12 3.8% 237 697 1 0.4% -76 -11 -3.4%

CONSTRUCTION TRADES ACADEMY 276 698 2 0.7% 398 695 1 0.3% 122 -1 -0.5%

CULINARY ARTS 410 702 7 1.7% 586 700 12 2.0% 176 5 0.3%

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 312 697 1 0.3% 352 699 3 0.9% 40 2 0.5%

GARRETT MORGAN ACADEMY N/A N/A N/A N/A 127 712 8 6.3% N/A

GOVERNMENT 412 700 14 3.4% 565 704 15 2.7% 153 1 -0.7%

HARP ACADEMY 78 722 16 20.5% 177 721 28 15.8% 99 12 -4.7%

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 392 703 12 3.1% 519 703 25 4.8% 127 13 1.8%

INTERNATIONAL HIGH 236 707 2 0.8% 350 709 28 8.0% 114 26 7.2%

ROSA PARKS ARTS HIGH 153 709 5 3.3% 206 713 13 6.3% 53 8 3.0%

SCHOOL OF EARTH AND SPACE 86 702 3 3.5% 144 705 8 5.6% 58 5 2.1%

STEM 326 711 24 7.4% 413 714 42 10.2% 87 18 2.8%

Number

of Valid

Scores

Average

Scale Score

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

Number

of Valid

Scores

Average

Scale Score

Year to Year

# Testers

≥ Level 4

Year to Year

%

≥ Level 4

Year to Year

# Testers

≥ Level 4

Met or Exceeded

Expectations

Using PARCC Data to Drive

Decisions and Instruction


47

QUESTIONS TO GUIDE PARCC DATA

REFLECTION

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

How will we use PARCC data as a tool to address areas in need of improvement or enhancement?

How can we provide additional resources and support for our educators to meet the learning needs of all our students?

48

PATERSON DATA-CENTRIC ACTIONS

Principals are provided with all of their student level data. All parents receive individual student reports.

The assessment office is also disaggregating the data further for schools.

Data literacy training was imbedded into the principal PD and will be given throughout the year.

Schools are required to create PLC teams where teachers have the opportunity to analyze student data, discuss teaching methods and resources, and implement best practices in their daily instruction.

49


2016 SPRING PARCC ADMINISTRATIONS

50



51



52

Standard RL 3: Describe characters in a story (e.g., their traits, motivations, or feelings) and explain how their actions contribute to the

sequence of events.

Evidence:

• Provides a description of characters in a story (e.g., their traits, motivations, or feelings).

• Provides an explanation of how characters’ actions contribute to the sequence of events.

Standard RI 3: Describe the relationship between a series of historical events, scientific ideas or concepts, or steps in technical procedures

in a text, using language that pertains to time, sequence, and cause/effect.

Evidence:

• Provides a description of the relationship between a series of historical events, using language that pertains to time,

sequence and/or cause/effect.

• Provides a description of the relationship between scientific ideas or concepts, using language that pertains to time,

sequence and/or cause/effect.

• Provides a description of the relationship between steps in technical procedures in a text, using language that pertains to

time, sequence and/or cause/effect.

53



54



Evidence Statement Key: 3.Int.5

Evidence Statement Text: Add, subtract, or multiply to solve a one-step word problem involving masses or volumes that are given in the same

units, where a substantial addition, subtraction, or multiplication step is required drawing on knowledge and skills articulated in 3.NBT, e.g., by

using drawings (such as a beaker with a measurement scale) to represent the problem.7. Content Scope: 3.MD.2, 3.NBT.2, and 3.NBT.3

Clarifications:

i) Tasks must be aligned to the first standard and 1 or more of the subsequent standards listed in the content scope.

Substantial (def.) – Values should be towards the higher end of the numbers identified in the standards.

Evidence Statement Key: 3.MD.2-2

Evidence Statement Text: Add, subtract, multiply, or divide to solve one-step word problems involving masses or volumes that are given in the

same units, e.g., by using drawings (such as a beaker with a measurement scale) to represent the problem.

Clarifications:

i) Only the answer is required (methods, representations, etc. are not assessed here).

ii) Units of grams (g), kilograms (kg), and liters (l).

Evidence Statement Key: 3.MD.2-3

Evidence Statement Text: Measure or estimate liquid volumes or masses of objects using standard units of grams (g), kilograms (kg), and liters

(l), then use the estimated value(s) to estimate the answer to a one-step word problem by using addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division.

Content Scope: 3.MD.2

55





56 This report is NOT for public review. Distribution within your school/district must be in accordance with state and federal privacy laws, and local school board policy.



57



58

Standard RI 2: Determine a central idea of a text and analyze its development over the course of the text, including how it emerges and is

shaped and refined by specific details; provide an objective summary of the text.

Standard RST 2: Determine the central ideas or conclusions of a text; trace the text’s explanation or depiction of a complex process,

phenomenon, or concept; provide an accurate summary of the text.

Standard RH 3: Analyze in detail a series of events described in a text; determine whether earlier events caused later ones or simply

preceded them.

Evidence:

• Provides a statement of central idea(s) of a text.

• Provides an analysis of the development of central idea(s) over the course of the text, including how the central idea emerges and

is shaped and refined by specific details.

• For RI/RST 2, provides an objective summary of a text.

• For RST 2, provides a statement of the conclusions of a text.

• For RST 2, demonstrates the ability to trace the text’s explanation or depiction of a complex process, phenomenon, or concept.

• For RH3, provides a detailed analysis of a series of events, including whether earlier events caused later ones or simply preceded

them.



59 This report is NOT for public review. Distribution within your school/district must be in accordance with state and federal privacy laws, and local school board policy.



60



61



62

Evidence Statement Key: F-IF.8b

Evidence Statement Text: Write a function defined by an expression in different but equivalent forms

to reveal and explain different properties of the function.

b) Use the properties of exponents to interpret expressions for exponential functions. For

example, identify percent rate of change in functions such as y = (1.02)t , y = (0.97)t , y =

(1.01)12t, y = (1.2)t/10 , and classify them as representing exponential growth or decay

Evidence Statement Key: HS.C.17.2

Evidence Statement Text: Make inferences and justify conclusions from data. Content scope: S-IC.

Clarifications:

i. For tasks that address simple random sample: A simple random sample requires that every possible group of the

given sample size has an equal chance of being selected, not that every unit in the population has an equal chance of

being selected.

ii. For tasks that address comparing two data distributions: Comparisons of center, shape, and spread are required.

Evidence Statement Key: HS.C.17.3

Evidence Statement Text: Make inferences and justify conclusions from data. Content scope: S-IC.3

Clarifications:

i. For tasks that address simple random sample: A simple random sample requires that every possible group of the

given sample size has an equal chance of being selected, not that every unit in the population has an equal chance of

being selected.

District Curriculum Curriculum has been updated to reflect the data from 2015 PARCC.

Continuation of utilizing the evidence statements to guide instructional decisions.

Increased the use of technology in the PARCC after school program.

Academics – English Language Arts (ELA) The district has created a new PARCC writing unit for all grades.

Upgraded the Read180 intervention software for high schools.

Every grade has added a two text unit – information and literary text

Academics - Mathematics Tasks were upgraded from type 1 to type 2 and 3 where appropriate.

New resources for Algebra 1 teachers that are aligned to standards.

Upgraded the SuccessMaker software to include PARCC tech enhanced items

DISTRICT STRATEGY 2016-17

63

Academics –Science

The science curriculum for grades 6-12 has been revised and updated to include the new NGSS (Next Generation Science Standards) standards.

The district has purchased additional units of FOSS kits for Grades 2 and 4. FOSS (Full Option Science System) is the core curriculum for science.

The district has expanded FOSS Kids to middle schools.

Special Services

The SLOs for both Math and ELA now include specific strategies for students with disabilities.

Bilingual

The district has developed a new K-12 ESL curriculum.

Math and ELA curriculum has been modified to accommodate various language proficiency levels.

DISTRICT STRATEGY 2016-17

64

There are examples of higher achieving schools within the

Paterson district.

There are examples of higher achieving classrooms within

Paterson’s schools.

Principals, staff, and PLC teams can find and replicate best

practices both within and across schools, using data to guide

their work.

KEY MESSAGES AND TAKEAWAYS

65

Paterson made significant gains on the PARCC from 2015 to

2016.

Overall District

Grade Levels

Demographic Groups

School leaders are being trained to work with their staff to

use various data to identify specific areas of improvement to

focus on this year.

Achieve excellent performance in every school and classroom.

Turn best practice into common practice.

KEY MESSAGES AND TAKEAWAYS

66

Questions?


67

parcc results: spring 2015 and spring 2016 docs/2016 parcc... · 2017-02-22 · spring 2015 and...

Documents