state of new jersey’s schools...njask lal proficiency by frpl eligibility njask math proficiency...

State of New Jersey’s Schools

February 29, 2012

1

The need for change

Overall, the NJDOE plays an important role in helping my district achieve its core mission of elevating student achievement and the number of students who graduate college and career ready.

22.5%

2 Source: Spring 2011 NJDOE Superintendent Survey

Today’s agenda

State of NJ Schools NJDOE Priorities

o Performance and Accountability o Academics o Talent o Innovation

2012-13 Budget

3

Enrollment has slightly decreased over time

1500

1700

1900

2100

2300

2500

2700

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

1.1

1.15

1.2

1.25

1.3

1.35

1.4

1.45

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

4

2,464 1.35 M

Number of NJ Schools Number of NJ Students, millions

Source: NJDOE

0

20

40

60

80

100

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Enrollment in inter-district choice has increased, but program remains small

5

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

3,365 73

Number of Choice Districts Number of Inter-District Choice Students

Source: NJDOE

Increase in Hispanic students, fewer White and African American students

17%

61%

6% 15% 16%

53%

9%

22%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

African American

White Asian Hispanic

2001 2011

27%

5% 13%

32%

4%

14%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

FRPL LEP Spec Ed

2003 2010

6

Statewide Enrollment by Race Statewide Enrollment by FRPL, LEP, SpEd

Source: NJDOE

Student Performance

7

Standards on state tests National ranking

4th grade – LAL 3

8th grade - LAL 30

4th grade – Math 12

8th grade – Math 17

Source: NAEP 2011 report

New Jersey has relatively high standards, as measured by NJASK

8

Consistently high performance on NJASK and HSPA

90

66

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

HSPA NJASK

76

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

HSPA NJASK

9

LAL Performance Math Performance

Source: NJDOE Assessment Data, 2005 - 2011

% proficient and above % proficient and above

On NAEP, NJ outperforms the nation

200

220

240

260

280

300

2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

New Jersey Nation

9 11

200

220

240

260

280

300

2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

New Jersey Nation

7 11

10

NAEP Reading 4th Performance

NAEP Reading 8th Performance

Source: NAEP 2003 - 2011

Average scaled score Average scaled score

800

900

1000

1100

1200

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Mea

n Co

mbi

ned

Verb

al a

nd M

ath

Scor

e

Nation New Jersey

NJ matches national averages on SAT scores

1011

11

Combined SAT Scores Over Time

Source: NJDOE SAT data, 2001 - 2011

More students taking AP tests

However, the percentage of AP tests scoring a 3 or higher

has been relatively constant at 72.5%

Year # of tests taken

’05 – ‘06 63,000

‘09 – ‘10 80,000

12 Source: NJDOE AP data, 2005 – 2006, 2009 - 2010

Achievement gaps

13

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

White Hispanic African American

20 31

22 32

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


27

24 28

33

NJASK racial gaps have remained constant

14

NJASK LAL Proficiency by Race NJASK Math Proficiency by Race

Source: NJDOE Assessment Data Grades 3 - 8, 2005 - 2011


0

20

40

60

80

100

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Disadvantaged Not Disadvantaged

24 25

NJASK gaps have remained constant for economically disadvantaged students

15

NJASK LAL Proficiency by FRPL eligibility NJASK Math Proficiency by FRPL eligibility


Source: NJDOE Assessment Data Grades 3 - 8, 2005 - 2011

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Disadvantaged Not Disadvantaged

31 26

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


16 25

12

HSPA racial gaps are decreasing as white student proficiency has remained stable

16

HSPA LAL Proficiency by Race HSPA Math Proficiency by Race

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


29

19 28

39


Source: NJDOE Assessment Data, 2005 - 2011

NAEP gaps persist in 8th grade reading

200

220

240

260

280

300

2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Not Disadvantaged Disadvantaged

29 28

17

NAEP Reading 8th Grade Performance by FRPL Eligibility

Source: NAEP, 2003 - 2011

Mea

n sc

aled

sco

re

20

40

60

80

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


20

17 15

18

SAT Participation by Race AP Participation by Race

White students are more likely to take the SAT and AP

0

20

40

60

80

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


40

32 24

31

18 Source: NJDOE SAT and AP data, 2005 - 2010

Percent of seniors taking SAT Percent taking at least 1 AP

SAT “college readiness” gap has increased over time

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 % o

f Tes

t-Ta

kers

Sco

ring

155

0 or

Hig

her


35

28 38

30

19 Source: NJDOE SAT data, 2006 - 2011

Percent of Test Takers Meeting College Benchmarks

AP racial gaps persist over time

0

15

30

45

60

75

90

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Perc

ent o

f Tes

ts S

cori

ng 4

or5

African American Hispanic White

21 15

39 38

20 Source: NJDOE AP data, 2006 - 2010

Percent of Students Scoring 4 or 5 on AP

Significant number of NJ students need college remediation

Bergen Community College (2009-10)

Essex County Community College (2007-08)

Union County College (2009-10)

91% Students tested into remedial math or English

61.2% Full-time, first-year students enrolled in at least one remedial class

89.5% Students tested into remedial math

58.2% Students tested into remedial reading

89.2% Students tested into remedial writing

21

Large within-school achievement gaps persist in top 25% of schools

150

175

200

225

250

275

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

LAL

Scal

ed S

core

Top 25% of Schools-LAL Performance (Excluding SpEd and LEP)

Top 25% In Top 25% Schools Bottom 25% in Top 25% Schools DFG A

45 65

22 Source: NJDOE Assessment data, 2005 - 2011

Top 25% of students in lower-performing schools outperform bottom 25% of students in higher-performing schools

150

175

200

225

250

275

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

LAL

Scal

ed S

core

LAL Performance (Excluding SpEd and LEP)

Top 25% In Top 25% Schools Top 25% In Bottom 25% Schools Bottom 25% in Top 25% Schools Bottom 25% In Bottom 25% Schools

20 24

23 Source: NJDOE Assessment Data, 2005 - 2011

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Scho

ol A

vera

ge P

rofic

ienc

y Ra

te, N

JASK

School FRPL Rate

Selected School FRPL Rate and Proficiency

Selected schools with FRPL rate below 40%

Selected schools with FRPL rate above 60%

Many high-poverty schools outperform low-poverty schools

24 Source: NJDOE Assessment Data, selected schools, 2009 - 2011

65% Proficiency

Focus on 3rd grade reading proficiency Number of 3rd grade students in New Jersey

that did not pass NJASK – LAL in 2010-11

Percentage of these students educated in DFG A or B districts

Percentage of these students educated in our five largest urban districts

Percentage of these students educated in schools that had a poverty rate lower than the state school average

25

37,000

42%

16%

43%

Source: NJDOE Assessment Data, Grade 3, 2010-2011

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

1-10%

10-20%

20-30%

30-40%

40-50%

50-60%

60-70%

70-80%

80-90%

90-100%

Scho

ol P

over

ty R

ate

Number of 3rd Graders Not Reading on Grade Level

3rd grade reading proficiency a statewide issue

26 Source: NJDOE Assessment Data, Grade 3, 2010 - 2011

Diversity not a driver of international competitiveness

Source: Hanushek, Eric, Peterson, Paul, Woessmann, Lodger. 2010. “US Math Performance in Global Perspective.” PEPG Report No:10-19.

27

Math performance of white students by U.S. state compared to students in other countries

Education spending in high-need districts exceeds statewide average

District Number of Priority and Focus Schools

Percent of Schools

Total Per-Pupil Spending, 2009-2010

Newark 28 47% $22,992

Camden 23 88% $23,770

Paterson 22 63% $20,229

Trenton 16 89% $21,038

Elizabeth 14 47% $21,952

Jersey City 13 36% $21,824

State 253 11% $17,836

28 Source: NJDOE; Priority and Focus Schools based on three-year average; Per Pupil: 2009 - 2010

Lowest-achieving schools are well resourced

Priority schools State average

Student – teacher ratio

11.9 12.6

Student – administrator ratio

171 268

Avg. faculty years of experience

14.6 13.1

Avg. faculty salary $70,774 $68,757

3rd grade reading proficiency

22% 63%

8th grade reading proficiency

41% 82% 29

Source: NJDOE, 2010 - 2011

Shifting the achievement gap conversation

What is the right question posed by this data?

Are we preparing all students for college

and career?

30

Deeper look at charter schools

31

Charter schools have increased, but remain 2% of total students

0

15

30

45

60

75

90

105

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

100

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

32

37,000

Number of Charter Schools Total Charter Enrollment

Source: NJDOE

Charter students are disproportionately African American and Hispanic

33 Source: NJDOE, 2010 - 2011

61%

70%

25%

10%

3% 8%

1% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

African American

Disadvantaged Hispanic White Asian Spec Ed LEP

Demographics of Charter Schools

Urban charter schools outperform their districts


In math, a similar gap persists (10 points)

54

45

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Perc

ent P

rofic

ient

and

Abo

ve

NJASK LAL Proficiency, Excluding Sped and LEP

Urban Charters Urban District

Urban charter school performance varies by district

20 3 6 7 7

0

20

40

60

80

Newark Paterson Jersey City Camden Trenton

Perc

ent P

rofic

ient

and

Abo

ve

NJASK LAL Proficiency , Excluding SpEd and LEP

Charter District

# Schools:


Charter school performance varies even within districts

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Mat

h N

JASK

Pro

ficie

ncy

LAL NJASK Proficiency

Performance of Newark Charter Schools , Excluding SpEd and LEP

District

TEAM

North Star

Robert Treat


Student Growth Percentiles (SGP)

37

What are Student Growth Percentiles?

New Jersey has adopted the Student Growth Percentile (SGP) methodology

SGPs illustrate the annual growth of a student relative to a

group of academic peers with a similar achievement history

Status and Growth = Performance New Jersey is changing the key question from, “Who’s

proficient and who’s not?” to, “Are we creating and fostering an educational environment where all students are learning and growing?”

38

Previous understanding of performance: proficiency

39

0

15

30

45

60

Perc

ent P

rofic

ient

or a

bove

, NJA

SK M

ath

2010

2010 Math Proficiency for One District’s Schools

ILLUSTRATIVE

Source: NJ District (Illustrative), 2009 - 2010

New understanding of performance: growth

40

Higher achievement, higher growth

Higher achievement, lower growth

Lower achievement, higher growth

Lower achievement, lower growth

ILLUSTRATIVE

NJDOE priorities

41

NJDOE refocusing to support student achievement

Department Reorganization Academics Talent Performance and Accountability Innovation

Changing relationship with schools NCLB flexibility request – new school accountability system Regional achievement centers Move away from compliance Deregulatory effort

42

New Jersey’s NCLB Flexibility Request Opportunity to decouple missing a subgroup target from a

‘lock-step’ consequence. No longer required to make AYP determinations that a school is ‘failing’

based on a single missed subgroup or participation rate.

Opportunity to dedicate NJDOE resources to our lowest performing schools. In 2010-2011, roughly 50% of schools were identified as failing to make

AYP.

As part of the Flexibility Request, NJDOE has identified about 15% of schools to receive supports and interventions.

43

Performance and accountability

44

Performance and accountability priorities

45

New unified accountability system Classification of schools under NCLB Flexibility Request

Building a data-rich environment to support local goal setting and improvement Performance Report Drill-down Reports in NJSMART

New measures of student performance and outcomes Student Growth Percentiles NCLB 4-year, adjust cohort graduation rate

Reduction of reporting redundancies

Data used to classify schools

NJASK Language Arts and Math HSPA Graduation Rate Growth demonstrated on NJASK

46

Definition of Priority and Focus Schools

47

Priority – School-wide Measures Schools in the bottom 5% of schools statewide on assessments and

graduation rates, who are also NOT demonstrating high growth.

SIG schools

Focus – Subgroup Measures Schools with dramatically underperforming subgroups that are not

demonstrating high growth on assessments or graduation rates.

Schools with large within school gaps between the highest achieving subgroup and the two lowest subgroups that are not demonstrating high growth.

Large within school gaps in Focus Schools

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Per

cent

Pro

ficie

nt a

nd A

bove

Focus Schools: Within-School LAL Proficiency Gaps

LAL Proficiency of Lowest Two Subgroups LAL Proficiency of Highest Subgroup LAL Proficiency Schoolwide

43 37


Other Schools

Reward Schools Demonstrating high achievement Demonstrating high growth

Not classified Local – and public – goal setting and planning process

49

Data-rich environment

50

New Performance Reports to replace School Report Card

Source: School Performance Report prototype


51

Focus on school-level metrics

Source: School Performance Report prototype


52

Drill-down reports in NJSMART Graduation Cohort Reports Early Warning Reports Post-Secondary Feedback Reports

Source: NJ SMART

Academics

53

Academics priorities

54

Implementation of Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Model Curriculum/Formative Assessments & PD

Instructional Improvement System Model lessons, resource support

Early Literacy (Prek-3) College and Career Readiness Transition to PARCC

Transitioning NJASK to CCSS

Why Model Curriculum?

55

Common Core State Standards • Fewer, clearer, more rigorous • Internationally benchmarked • Aligned to college and career readiness

46 states and DC have adopted the CCSS

• Leverage state and nation-wide expertise • PARCC (23 states & DC) • Effective teachers need effective tools • Continuous improvement (version 1.0 to be followed by 2.0)

Version 1.0 Version 2.0 Version 1.0

WHAT Students need to Learn

HOW We can best Instruct

WHEN Do we know students

have learned

Standard Student Learning

Objectives Instruction

Formative Assessments

Summative/Formative

CCSS

Standard 1

SLO #1

SLO #2

• Model Lessons • Model Tasks • Engaging

Instructional Strategies

• Effective

checks for understanding

• Teacher- designed formative assessments

Unit Assessment SLOs 1-5

CCSS Standard 2

SLO #3

SLO #4

SLO #5

General Bank of Assessment Items 2.0

Student -level learning reports - Professional development - Resource reviews

Model Curriculum Unit

56

Regional Achievement Centers

57

RACs represent the most ambitious and focused effort to date to improve student achievement across the state:

• Change focus from all schools to low-performing schools

• Required alignment of resources to proven turnaround principles

• Coordination of State resources to support RACs

The Department is undergoing a fundamental shift from a system of oversight and monitoring to service delivery and support

Regional Achievement Centers

58

Identify schools struggling the most

Assess needs and develop plans

Provide targeted interventions aligned to proven turnaround principles

Determine advanced interventions if a school does not improve

8 Turnaround Principles

1. Climate & culture

2. Principal leadership

3. Quality of instruction

4. Standards-based curriculum, assessment, intervention system

5. Effective use of data to improve student achievement

6. Effective staffing practices

7. Academically-focused family & community engagement

8. Redesigning school time

Talent

59

60

Recruitment and Preparation

Licensure and Certification

Evaluation Professional Development

Retention and Separation

Talent priorities

Current evaluations are subjective and fail to impact teaching practice

NEW JERSEY

Troubling achievement gaps

50% of college students never graduate

NATIONALLY

Teacher effectiveness is the most important in-school factor for improving student achievement The Widget Effect exposes failure of schools to distinguish among and recognize the effectiveness of their teachers

The Obama administration highlights evaluation reform as a key commitment tied to federal policy and funding opportunities

At least 32 states have recently changed their evaluation systems

Why transform our teacher evaluation systems?

61

2010 – 2011: Governor’s Educator Effectiveness Task Force developed evaluation guidelines

2011 – 2012: DOE implemented EE4NJ teacher evaluation

pilot program with 11 pilot districts and 19 schools currently receiving School Improvement Grant (SIG) funding

2012 – 2013: Capacity building and preparation year for all

Districts including opportunity to participate in a new grant-supported pilot program

2013 – 2014: Full roll-out and implementation of new

teacher evaluation systems

Progress to Date and Upcoming Milestones

62

Lessons Learned from EE4NJ Pilots

Stakeholder engagement

District Evaluation Pilot Advisory Committee (DEPAC)

Evaluator and Teacher Training

Capacity challenges

Non-Tested Grades and Subjects

63

Next steps for teacher evaluation

LEAs

• Use 2012-2013 to prepare for implementation through participation in a new teacher evaluation pilot or completion of defined set of benchmarks

• Continue to garner feedback from your teachers and principals in order to build the culture needed for a robust evaluation system

NJDOE

Propose Regulations to the State Board based upon lessons learned from current pilot

Release two new grant opportunities to pilot teacher and principal evaluation systems

Assist participating Districts in allocating their Race to the Top allocations

Provide more frequent and more precise communication

2013 – 2014: Full roll-out and implementation of new teacher evaluation 64

Budget

65

Overall numbers

Increase of $135 million in K-12 formula aid Most state aid in NJ history

Return to SFRA formula

90% of districts receive an increase in state aid

Fully fund SFRA in 5 years Increase state aid in each subsequent year

66

Funding formula changes – phased in over 5 years

Move to “average daily attendance”

Reduce Adjustment Aid by 50% of spending over adequacy

Return “at-risk” and “LEP” weights to those proposed by Professional Judgment Panels (PJPs)

Convene task force for new measure of “at-risk”

67

Funding increases after weights are adjusted

SFRA Fiscal Year 2009 Per Pupil

Governor Christie’s FY13 Proposal Per Pupil

At-risk student

$16,595 - $17,724 $17,386 - $17,875

LEP student

$16,934 $17,998

Combination At-Risk/LEP student

$18,006 - $19,135 $18,671 - $19,161

68 Source: SFRA Fiscal Year 2009; Governor Christie’s FY13 Proposal

High school example (trend persists for all grade levels):

Not just what you spend…

It’s not only “how much” money is spent but “how well” it is spent.

Changing the way money is spent is by far the most important means of actually changing the behavior of schools and the school systems.

69

70

Question and Answer

State of New Jersey’s SchoolsThe need for changeToday’s agendaEnrollment has slightly decreased over timeEnrollment in inter-district choice has increased, but program remains smallIncrease in Hispanic students, fewer White and African American studentsStudent PerformanceNew Jersey has relatively high standards, as measured by NJASKConsistently high performance on NJASK and HSPAOn NAEP, NJ outperforms the nationNJ matches national averages on SAT scoresMore students taking AP testsAchievement gapsNJASK racial gaps have remained constantNJASK gaps have remained constant for economically disadvantaged students HSPA racial gaps are decreasing as white student proficiency has remained stableNAEP gaps persist in 8th grade readingWhite students are more likely to take the SAT and APSAT “college readiness” gap has increased over timeAP racial gaps persist over timeSignificant number of NJ students need college remediationLarge within-school achievement gaps persist in top 25% of schoolsTop 25% of students in lower-performing schools outperform bottom 25% of students in higher-performing schoolsMany high-poverty schools outperform low-poverty schoolsFocus on 3rd grade reading proficiency3rd grade reading proficiency a statewide issue Diversity not a driver of international competitivenessEducation spending in high-need districts exceeds statewide averageLowest-achieving schools are well resourcedShifting the achievement gap conversationDeeper look at charter schoolsCharter schools have increased, but remain 2% of total studentsCharter students are disproportionately African American and HispanicUrban charter schools outperform their districtsUrban charter school performance varies by districtCharter school performance varies even within districtsStudent Growth Percentiles (SGP)What are Student Growth Percentiles?Previous understanding of performance: proficiencyNew understanding of performance: growthNJDOE prioritiesNJDOE refocusing to support student achievementNew Jersey’s NCLB Flexibility RequestPerformance and accountabilityPerformance and accountability prioritiesData used to classify schoolsDefinition of Priority and Focus SchoolsLarge within school gaps in Focus SchoolsOther SchoolsData-rich environmentData-rich environmentData-rich environmentAcademicsAcademics prioritiesWhy Model Curriculum?Model Curriculum UnitRegional Achievement CentersRegional Achievement CentersTalentTalent prioritiesWhy transform our teacher evaluation systems?Progress to Date and Upcoming Milestones�Lessons Learned from EE4NJ Pilots�Next steps for teacher evaluationBudgetOverall numbersFunding formula changes – phased in over 5 yearsFunding increases after weights are adjustedNot just what you spend…Slide Number 70

state of new jersey’s schools...njask lal proficiency by frpl eligibility njask math proficiency...

Documents