Mount Olive Township Public Schools
Pathways to Excellence
First Quarter Report
2014-2014
December 22, 2104
1
District Goals
Graduate all students career and college ready
 Get kids thinking
Metrics used to measure progress
Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI)
 used to assess reading ability for grades 2-8
 provides a lexile score that reflects above grade level,
on grade level, or below grade level performance
Journeys Benchmark Exams
 Used in grades __ - __ to ___
Math in Focus Cumulative Assessments
 Used in grades __ - ___ to ___
Metrics used to measure progress
Quarterly Assessments
 Used to assess performance in math, ELA, science
and social studies in grades 6 – 12
Marking period grades
Differentials
 Used to evaluate comparability of marking period
grades and quarterly assessment scores
Analysis of Data
Three reference points
 How are we doing compared to standard?
 How are we doing compared to ourselves?
 How are we doing compared to others?
SRI Results – District
Comparison of SY 14-15 to 2009-2014 average
 Students outperformed the district average on
the Sept. and Nov. tests in every grade except 6th
(1 point lower in Sept., 4.4 points lower in Nov.)
 The difference between SY 14-15 and the district
average widens over time (except grade 6),
demonstrating the cumulative effect of
improvement in cohort performance over time.
SRI Results - District
Comparison of SY 14-15 to 2009-2014 average
 On the Sept. assessment:
 Grade 2 was 25 points higher than 09-14 average
 Grade 8 was 66 points higher than 09-14 average
 On the Nov. assessment:
 Grade 2 was 27 points higher than 09-14 average
 Grade 8 was 71 points higher than 09-14 average
SRI Results - District
Comparison of SY 14-15 to 2009-2014 average
 As in previous years, improvement from Sept. to
Nov. is greatest in the early grades and gradually
flattens over time.
 In SY14-15, the greatest improvement from
Sept. to Nov. was in grade 2 (98.8 point gain),
followed by grade 3 (44.6 point gain) and grade
4 (35.4 point gain). The smallest increase was in
grade 8 (7.8 points).
SRI Mean Lexile Comparison - Elementary
2009-14 Average vs. 2014-15 SY
1400.0
1200.0
1157.3
1127.8
1087.9
1000.0
2009-2013
Grade Level
Mean
2014-15
Performance
800.0
582.2
600.0
1125.5
1109.5
1094.0
1082.2
1091.3
967.0
1052.1
1045.5
1029.3
1003.5
908.6
985.6
957.4968.0
927.4
894.3
863.6
759.0
843.3
810.6
767.1
729.8
698.4
658.2
608.2
565.9
541.3
462.0
400.0
293.2
365.7
200.0 268.3
2nd Grade
3rd Grade
4th Grade
5th Grade
6th Grade
7th Grade
8th Grade
SRI Mean Lexile Growth - Elementary
2009-14 Average vs. 2014-15 SY
1000.0
930.5
908.6
957.4
900.0
927.4
894.3
794.4
800.0
759.0
843.3
863.6
810.6
767.1
700.0
729.8
626.8
658.2
582.2
600.0
698.4
608.2
565.9
541.3
500.0
392
400.0
293.2
462.0
365.7
300.0
268.3
200.0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin.
2nd Grade
3rd Grade
4th Grade
5th Grade
Mount Olive Middle School
SRI Lexile Growth
2010-14 Average vs. 2014-15 SY
1200.0
1150.0
1157.3
1165.1
1129.6
1100.0
1109.5
1087.9
1125.5
1127.8
1113.3
1093
1082.2
1065.7
1050.0
1056.1
1029.3
981.2
1000.0
1003.5
967
981.7
950.0
968.3
900.0
1st Admin. 2nd Admin. 3rd Admin. 4th Admin. 1st Admin. 2nd Admin. 3rd Admin. 4th Admin. 1st Admin. 2nd Admin. 3rd Admin. 4th Admin.
6th Grade
7th Grade
8th Grade
Mount Olive District Grades 2-8
SRI Lexile Growth
2009-14 Average vs. 2014-15 SY
1200.0
1157.3 1165.1
1087.9
1100.0
967.0
1000.0
930.5
908.6
957.4 968.0
900.0
1093
1125.51127.8
1109.5
1094.0
1091.3
1082.2
981.2
1045.51052.1
1029.3
1003.5
985.6
927.4
894.3
794.4
800.0
759.0
843.3
863.6
810.6
767.1
700.0
729.8
626.8
698.4
582.2
600.0
658.2
608.2
500.0
541.3
565.9
392
462.0
400.0
293.2
300.0
2nd Grade
3rd Grade
4th Grade
5th Grade
6th Grade
7th Grade
8th Grade
4th Admin
3rd Admin
2nd Admin
1st Admin
4th Admin
3rd Admin
2nd Admin
1st Admin
4th Admin
3rd Admin
2nd Admin
1st Admin
4th Admin
3rd Admin
2nd Admin
1st Admin
4th Admin
3rd Admin
2nd Admin
1st Admin
4th Admin
3rd Admin
2nd Admin
1st Admin
4th Admin
3rd Admin
2nd Admin
268.3
1st Admin
200.0
365.7
SRI Results – School v. District
Comparison of school performance in SY14-15 to
district performance in SY14-15.
CMS
Mt. View
Tinc
Sandshore
Grade 2
Above
Above
Below
Below
Grade 3
Below
Below
Above
Above
Grade 4
Below
Above
Similar
Above
Grade 5
Below
Below
Above
Above
SRI Results - School, SY 14-15 v. 2009-2014
Comparison of school performance in SY14-15 to
average school performance in 2009-2014.
CMS
Mt. View
Tinc
Sandshore
Grade 2
Above
Above
Above
Below
Grade 3
Below
Above
Above
Above
Grade 4
Below
Above
Above
Above
Grade 5
Above
Above
Above
Above
Chester M. Stephens SRI Lexile Growth
2009-14 Average vs. 2014-15 SY
1000.0
900.0
800.0
700.0
600.0
500.0
400.0
300.0
200.0
2009-2014 Grade Level Mean
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin.
2nd Grade
3rd Grade
4th Grade
5th Grade
272.9 369.4 473.5 561.0 567.6 610.2 659.6 694.4 722.6 753.2 795.0 825.1 854.4 883.9 916.5 945.1
2014-15 Performance
328.5
416.6
2009-2014 District Grade Level Mean
268.3
365.7
2014-15 District Performance
293.2
392
462.0
541.3
558.7
601.2
565.9
608.2
582.2
626.8
658.2
698.4
699.8
746.1
729.8
767.1
759
794.4
810.6
843.3
905.4
927.4
863.6
894.3
908.6
930.5
927.4
957.4
Mountain View SRI Lexile Growth
2009-14 Average vs. 2014-15 SY
1000.0
900.0
800.0
700.0
600.0
500.0
400.0
300.0
200.0
2009-2014 Grade Level Mean
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin.
2nd Grade
3rd Grade
4th Grade
5th Grade
258.5 347.3 445.3 520.0 558.9 602.4 656.8 701.4 730.7 766.2 801.9 833.5 848.6 887.6 920.5 952.0
2014-15 Performance
345.87
434
2009-2014 District Grade Level Mean
268.3
365.7
2014-15 District Performance
293.2
392
462.0
541.3
569.7
608.3
565.9
608.2
582.2
626.8
658.2
698.4
779.2
802.5
729.8
767.1
759
794.4
810.6
843.3
879.6
908.2
863.6
894.3
908.6
930.5
927.4
957.4
Sandshore SRI Lexile Growth
2009-14 Average vs. 2014-15 SY
1000.0
900.0
800.0
700.0
600.0
500.0
400.0
300.0
200.0
2009-2014 Grade Level Mean
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin.
2nd Grade
3rd Grade
4th Grade
5th Grade
294.2 396.7 476.6 550.2 581.2 620.5 672.4 708.4 746.1 782.8 821.9 857.7 873.0 906.7 938.7 969.4
2014-15 Performance
242.9
366.5
2009-2014 District Grade Level Mean
268.3
365.7
2014-15 District Performance
293.2
392
462.0
541.3
629.3
672.6
565.9
608.2
582.2
626.8
658.2
698.4
839.3
874.1
729.8
767.1
759
794.4
810.6
843.3
930.9
944.3
863.6
894.3
908.6
930.5
927.4
957.4
Tinc Rd. SRI Lexile Growth
2009-14 Average vs. 2014-15 SY
1000.0
900.0
800.0
700.0
600.0
500.0
400.0
300.0
200.0
2009-2014 Grade Level Mean
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin. Admin.
2nd Grade
3rd Grade
4th Grade
5th Grade
241.8 350.9 451.6 540.7 557.5 605.4 652.3 693.9 727.3 776.2 822.2 862.8 884.0 903.6 939.1 968.4
2014-15 Performance
247.7
352.7
2009-2014 District Grade Level Mean
268.3
365.7
2014-15 District Performance
293.2
392
462.0
541.3
595.4
649.5
565.9
608.2
582.2
626.8
658.2
698.4
762.2
793.8
729.8
767.1
759
794.4
810.6
843.3
918.2
941.9
863.6
894.3
908.6
930.5
927.4
957.4
SRI Results – SY 14-15
Sept. 2014 – Grade to grade comparison
 The percentage of students who score above
grade level increases steadily from grade 2 to
grade 8 (9.1% to 51.7%).
 The percentage of students who score below
grade level decreases from grade 2 to grade 8
(67.9% to 16.6%) with the exception of grade 6.
September 2014 SRI Administration
Proficiency Levels - District
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Above Grade Level
On Grade Level
Below Grade Level
Grade 2
9.1%
23.0%
67.9%
Grade 3
16.1%
47.3%
36.7%
Grade 4
20.0%
43.5%
36.5%
Grade 5
34.2%
34.8%
31.1%
Grade 6
38.4%
21.8%
39.7%
Grade 7
50.9%
22.4%
26.7%
Grade 8
51.7%
31.7%
16.6%
SRI Results – District SY 14-15
Comparison of percentage of students who scored
above grade level, on grade level, below grade level
on the Sept. and Nov. SRI assessments.
 Above grade level performance increased in
every grade level (grade 2 – 5).
 Below grade level performance decreased in
every grade level (grade 2 – 5).
 The percent change from Sept. to Nov. in both
categories was greatest in grade 2 and decreased
for each grade to grade 5.
Sept./Nov. District Grade Level
Proficiency Comparison
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Above Grade
On Grade
Below Grade
September
Grade 2
10.3%
22.9%
66.8%
November
Grade 2
16.0%
33.9%
50.2%
September
Grade 3
17.0%
47.3%
35.7%
November
Grade 3
22.3%
47.3%
30.4%
September
Grade 4
20.8%
43.1%
36.1%
November
Grade 4
25.1%
42.5%
32.4%
September
Grade 5
35.0%
34.3%
30.7%
November
Grade 5
38.0%
33.1%
28.9%
SRI Results - School SY 14-15
 The percentage of students who scored Above
Grade Level increased in each grade, in each
school, except 5th grade in Sandshore, which
decreased by 1.5%.
 The percentage of students who scored Below
Grade Level decreased in each grade, in each
school, except Mt. View, which increased by 1.4%
in grade 3 and remained the same in grade 4 and
grade 5.
SRI Results – School SY 14-15
 Tinc began the year with the lowest Above Grade
Level performance (5%) and highest Below Grade
Level performance (77.5%), followed by
Sandshore (6% Above and 76.1% Below)
 The most significant improvement in grade level
performance (Sept. grade 2 to Nov. grade 5)
occurred at Sandshore, followed by Tinc.
 The highest percentage of Above Grade Level
performance was Sanshore grade 5 (41.4%).
Sept./Nov. Chester M. Stephens Grade
Level Proficiency Comparison
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Above Grade
On Grade
Below Grade
September
Grade 2
11.1%
26.9%
62.0%
November
Grade 2
16.7%
38.9%
44.4%
September
Grade 3
16.9%
42.7%
40.3%
November
Grade 3
24.2%
44.4%
31.5%
September
Grade 4
16.4%
38.5%
45.1%
November
Grade 4
21.3%
38.5%
40.2%
September
Grade 5
33.3%
33.3%
33.3%
November
Grade 5
38.0%
32.4%
29.6%
Sept./Nov. Mountain View Grade
Level Proficiency Comparison
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Above Grade
On Grade
Below Grade
September
Grade 2
20.3%
28.1%
51.6%
November
Grade 2
28.1%
25.0%
46.9%
September
Grade 3
13.7%
52.1%
34.2%
November
Grade 3
17.8%
46.6%
35.6%
September
Grade 4
20.9%
44.2%
34.9%
November
Grade 4
22.1%
43.0%
34.9%
September
Grade 5
32.9%
30.0%
37.1%
November
Grade 5
35.7%
27.1%
37.1%
Sept./Nov. Sandshore Grade Level
Proficiency Comparison
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Above Grade
On Grade
Below Grade
September
Grade 2
6.0%
17.9%
76.1%
November
Grade 2
13.4%
25.4%
61.2%
September
Grade 3
18.6%
54.2%
27.1%
November
Grade 3
22.0%
55.9%
22.0%
September
Grade 4
28.8%
47.0%
24.2%
November
Grade 4
34.8%
48.5%
16.7%
September
Grade 5
42.9%
34.3%
22.9%
November
Grade 5
41.4%
37.1%
21.4%
Sept./Nov. Tinc Rd. Grade Level
Proficiency Comparison
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Above Grade
On Grade
Below Grade
September
Grade 2
5.0%
17.5%
77.5%
November
Grade 2
7.5%
41.3%
51.3%
September
Grade 3
18.8%
45.0%
36.3%
November
Grade 3
23.8%
46.3%
30.0%
September
Grade 4
20.8%
45.8%
33.3%
November
Grade 4
26.4%
43.1%
30.6%
September
Grade 5
32.1%
39.5%
28.4%
November
Grade 5
37.0%
35.8%
27.2%
Sept./Nov. 2nd Grade Proficiency
Comparison by School
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
CMS
CMS
MV
MV
SS
SS
TR
TR
Dist
Dist
September November September November September November September November September November
Above Grade
11.1%
16.7%
20.3%
28.1%
6.0%
13.4%
5.0%
7.5%
10.3%
16.0%
On Grade
26.9%
38.9%
28.1%
25.0%
17.9%
25.4%
17.5%
41.3%
22.9%
33.9%
Below Grade
62.0%
44.4%
51.6%
46.9%
76.1%
61.2%
77.5%
51.3%
66.8%
50.2%
Sept./Nov. 3rd Grade Proficiency
Comparison by School
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
CMS
CMS
MV
MV
SS
SS
TR
TR
Dist
Dist
September November September November September November September November September November
Above Grade
16.9%
24.2%
13.7%
17.8%
18.6%
22.0%
18.8%
23.8%
17.0%
22.3%
On Grade
42.7%
44.4%
52.1%
46.6%
54.2%
55.9%
45.0%
46.3%
47.3%
47.3%
Below Grade
40.3%
31.5%
34.2%
35.6%
27.1%
22.0%
36.3%
30.0%
35.7%
30.4%
Sept./Nov. 4th Grade Proficiency
Comparison by School
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
CMS
CMS
MV
MV
SS
SS
TR
TR
Dist
Dist
September November September November September November September November September November
Above Grade
16.4%
21.3%
20.9%
22.1%
28.8%
34.8%
20.8%
26.4%
20.8%
25.1%
On Grade
38.5%
38.5%
44.2%
43.0%
47.0%
48.5%
45.8%
43.1%
43.1%
42.5%
Below Grade
45.1%
40.2%
34.9%
34.9%
24.2%
16.7%
33.3%
30.6%
36.1%
32.4%
Sept./Nov. 5th Grade Proficiency
Comparison by School
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
CMS
CMS
MV
MV
SS
SS
TR
TR
Dist
Dist
September November September November September November September November September November
Above Grade
33.3%
38.0%
32.9%
35.7%
42.9%
41.4%
32.1%
37.0%
35.0%
38.0%
On Grade
33.3%
32.4%
30.0%
27.1%
34.3%
37.1%
39.5%
35.8%
34.3%
33.1%
Below Grade
33.3%
29.6%
37.1%
37.1%
22.9%
21.4%
28.4%
27.2%
30.7%
28.9%
SRI Results – MOMS SY 14-15
 The percentage of students who scored Above
Grade Level increased in grades 6, 7 and 8.
 The percentage of students who scored Below
Grade Level decreased in grade 6 and increased
by 1.1% in grade 7 an .3% in grade 8.
 Seventh grade had the highest percentage of
Above Grade Level performance in the district
(54.6%).
Sept./Nov. MOMS Proficiency
Comparison by Grade
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
September
November
September
6th Grade
Above Grade
On Grade
Below Grade
37.4%
23.7%
38.9%
November
September
7th Grade
39.7%
22.7%
37.6%
52.1%
22.7%
25.2%
November
8th Grade
54.6%
19.1%
26.3%
51.3%
32.3%
16.4%
52.4%
30.9%
16.7%
MOMS Distribution of Marking Period
Grades and Quarterly Assessment Scores
 Most marking period grades were in the A to Brange, with B being the most commonly earned
grade in ELA, math and science. The most
common grade in social studies was A.
 Q1 assessment scores were distributed more
evenly across performance levels.
 The most commonly earned grade on the Q1
assessment for each subject area was B.
MOMS Q1 Marking Period vs Quarterly
Assessment Grade Distribution – All ELA
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Marking Period Grade
Quarterly Assessment
A+
1.1%
4.5%
A
15.3%
14.0%
A15.8%
11.3%
B+
14.7%
5.8%
B
18.5%
21.9%
B13.8%
11.2%
C+
8.4%
6.2%
C
6.7%
13.2%
C2.7%
6.4%
F
2.9%
5.5%
MOMS Q1 Marking Period vs Quarterly
Assessment Grade Distribution – All Math
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Marking Period Grade
Quarterly Assessment
A+
4.2%
7.4%
A
15.3%
13.0%
A14.6%
12.8%
B+
14.7%
8.1%
B
17.4%
16.2%
B10.5%
9.5%
C+
7.7%
4.5%
C
7.2%
10.1%
C4.4%
6.4%
F
4.1%
12.0%
MOMS Q1 Marking Period vs Quarterly
Assessment Grade Distribution – All Science
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Marking Period Grade
Quarterly Assessment
A+
1.6%
7.7%
A
16.3%
12.2%
A17.1%
12.2%
B+
15.6%
8.3%
B
17.3%
16.1%
B12.2%
10.7%
C+
7.6%
5.2%
C
7.4%
11.4%
C3.5%
8.7%
F
1.3%
7.5%
MOMS Q1 Marking Period vs Quarterly
Assessment Grade Distribution – All Social Studies
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Marking Period Grade
Quarterly Assessment
A+
4.1%
3.7%
A
20.6%
13.4%
A17.1%
12.4%
B+
12.3%
8.3%
B
14.2%
15.5%
B9.4%
11.5%
C+
6.9%
4.7%
C
8.1%
10.8%
C3.6%
9.2%
F
3.6%
10.5%
MOMS Difference between Marking Period
Average and Quarterly Assessment Average
 The marking period average for each subject area
was remarkably consistent (85.1 to 85.9).
 The quarterly assessment average or each subject
area was also consistent (82.2 to 83.3).
 Outcomes on both measures, in each grade level,
for each subject area, varied from a .3 to 6 point
difference.
MOMS Q1 Marking Period Average vs
Quarterly Assessment Average – All Subjects
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Marking Period Average
Quarterly Assessment Average
ELA
85.1
83.2
Math
85.1
82.5
SCI
85.7
83.3
SS
85.9
82.2
MOMS Q1 Marking Period Average vs
Quarterly Assessment Average – ELA
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Marking Period Average
Quarterly Assessment Average
Grade 6
85.1
83.0
Grade 7
85.0
83.2
Grade 8
85.2
83.4
MOMS Q1 Marking Period Average vs
Quarterly Assessment Average – Math
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Marking Period Average
Quarterly Assessment Average
Grade 6
85.1
82.5
Grade 7
85.9
81.7
Grade 8
84.3
83.3
MOMS Q1 Marking Period Average vs
Quarterly Assessment Average – Science
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Marking Period Average
Quarterly Assessment Average
Grade 6
84.4
82.4
Grade 7
86.2
81.2
Grade 8
86.5
86.2
MOMS Q1 Marking Period Average vs Quarterly
Assessment Average – Social Studies
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Marking Period Average
Quarterly Assessment Average
Grade 6
85.7
82.2
Grade 7
87.0
85.2
Grade 8
85.2
79.3
MOHS Distribution of Marking Period
Grades and Quarterly Assessment Scores
 Most marking period grades were in the A- to Brange, with B being the most commonly earned
grade in ELA, math and science and social studies.
 Q1 assessment scores were distributed more
evenly across performance levels.
 The most commonly earned grade on the Q1
assessments for each subject area was B.
MOHS Full School Major Subjects
First Quarter Grade v First Quarter Exam
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
1st Quarter Grades
1st Quarter Exam
A+
0.6%
3.1%
A
8.5%
10.8%
A12.4%
11.0%
B+
14.9%
7.9%
B
21.5%
21.9%
B14.9%
12.2%
C+
8.2%
5.6%
C
8.4%
12.0%
C5.1%
5.6%
F
5.5%
9.9%
MOHS Full School English
First Quarter Grade v First Quarter Exam
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
1st Quarter Grades
1st Quarter Exam
A+
0.1%
1.3%
A
5.3%
6.8%
A12.7%
9.3%
B+
16.7%
9.3%
B
23.7%
25.2%
B15.6%
14.1%
C+
7.7%
7.2%
C
7.2%
14.0%
C5.2%
6.5%
F
5.8%
6.3%
MOHS Full School Mathematics
First Quarter Grade v First Quarter Exam
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
1st Quarter Grades
1st Quarter Exam
A+
1.6%
6.2%
A
12.4%
14.7%
A11.8%
11.4%
B+
13.5%
5.8%
B
16.9%
17.4%
B14.1%
8.7%
C+
7.7%
5.0%
C
8.9%
10.2%
C6.0%
5.9%
F
7.1%
14.9%
MOHS Full School Science
First Quarter Grade v First Quarter Exam
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
1st Quarter Grades
1st Quarter Exam
A+
0.4%
3.0%
A
9.6%
11.6%
A13.9%
10.0%
B+
13.4%
7.4%
B
20.2%
19.9%
B13.3%
12.6%
C+
9.2%
4.9%
C
8.4%
10.6%
C5.7%
5.6%
F
5.9%
14.3%
MOHS Full School Social Studies
First Quarter Grade v First Quarter Exam
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
1st Quarter Grades
1st Quarter Exam
A+
0.5%
1.8%
A
7.0%
10.6%
A10.8%
13.8%
B+
15.8%
9.2%
B
25.5%
25.1%
B16.5%
13.3%
C+
8.5%
5.1%
C
9.6%
13.2%
C3.2%
4.2%
F
2.6%
3.6%
MOHS Difference between Marking Period
Average and Quarterly Assessment Average
 The marking period average for each subject area
was remarkably consistent (82.4 to 83.4).
 The quarterly assessment average or each subject
area was also consistent (80.2 to 83.2).
 The average Q1 marking period grade for all
subjects was 82.8.
 The average Q1 assessment grade was 81.3.
MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment
Differentials – By Subject
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Average Q1 MP Grade
Average of Q1 Quarterly Assessment
English
82.4
81.3
Math
82.8
80.9
Science
82.8
80.2
Social Studies
83.4
83.2
Major Subjects
82.8
81.3
MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment
Differentials – English I
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Average Q1 MP Grade
Average of Q1 Quarterly Assessment
English I
82.4
84.6
English I CP
84.0
80.3
English I H
89.1
85.3
MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment
Differentials – English II
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Average Q1 MP Grade
Average of Q1 Quarterly Assessment
English II
72.9
75.8
English II CP
81.2
78.4
English II H
86.7
83.0
MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment
Differentials – English III
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Average Q1 MP Grade
Average of Q1 Quarterly Assessment
English III
75.1
72.4
English III CP
82.4
83.8
English III H
90.6
86.4
MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment
Differentials – English IV
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Average Q1 MP Grade
Average of Q1 Quarterly Assessment
English IV
66.7
73.0
English IV CP
81.3
81.1
English IV H
86.4
87.0
MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment
Differentials – RC English
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Average Q1 MP Grade
Average of Q1 Quarterly Assessment
RC English I
79.4
79.6
RC English II
78.3
82.4
RC English III
70.4
70.8
RC English IV
84.4
75.8
RC Reading I
79.4
76.8
MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment
Differentials – Algebra
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Average Q1 MP Grade
Average of Q1 Quarterly Assessment
Algebra I CP
80.8
76.4
Algebra II
78.3
76.0
Algebra II CP
80.8
78.2
Algebra II H
84.9
87.8
MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment
Differentials – Geometry
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Average Q1 MP Grade
Average of Q1 Quarterly Assessment
Essen of Geom
77.3
77.5
Geometry CP
81.5
80.1
Geometry H
92.2
92.9
MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment
Differentials – CompSci and Prob Stat
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Average Q1 MP Grade
Average of Q1 Quarterly Assessment
Intro Comp Sci
88.2
43.7
Prob & Stats CP
84.1
85.0
MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment
Differentials – PreCalculus
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Average Q1 MP Grade
Average of Q1 Quarterly Assessment
Pre-Calculus CP
82.2
83.7
Pre-Calculus H
86.0
87.1
MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment
Differentials – RC Math
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Average Q1 MP Grade
Average of Q1 Quarterly Assessment
Found of Math
84.3
81.9
RC Algebra
80.7
79.1
RC Geometry
84.0
82.2
RC Senior Math
87.3
68.4
MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment
Differentials – Biology
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Average Q1 MP Grade
Average of Q1 Quarterly Assessment
Biology
80.6
77.9
Biology H
88.0
84.8
Biology Lab CP
84.3
83.8
MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment
Differentials – Chemistry
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Average Q1 MP Grade
Average of Q1 Quarterly Assessment
Chem Lab A CP
80.3
78.5
Chem Lab B CP
74.5
73.8
Chemistry Lab H
86.2
87.5
MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment
Differentials – Human Anatomy
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Average Q1 MP Grade
Average of Q1 Quarterly Assessment
Human Anatmy
88.9
87.8
HumAnatPhysH
91.4
85.4
MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment
Differentials – Int. Science/STEM
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Average Q1 MP Grade
Average of Q1 Quarterly Assessment
Integ Sci/STEM
82.3
71.7
MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment
Differentials – Physics
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Average Q1 MP Grade
Average of Q1 Quarterly Assessment
Physics First CP
81.7
80.4
Physics First H
88.1
84.2
Physics Lab CP
87.9
84.6
MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment
Differentials – RC Science
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Average Q1 MP Grade
Average of Q1 Quarterly Assessment
RC Biology
86.6
67.0
RC Chemistry
86.1
90.1
RC Int Sci/STEM
83.4
59.1
MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment
Differentials – RC History
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Average Q1 MP Grade
Average of Q1 Quarterly Assessment
RC US History I
77.6
78.9
RC US History II
84.0
85.1
RC World Hist 9
91.5
89.9
MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment
Differentials – US History
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Average Q1 MP Grade
Average of Q1 Quarterly Assessment
US History I
78.7
77.4
US History I
CP
81.4
80.1
US History I
H
87.4
85.3
US History II
88.7
86.9
US History II
CP
84.3
83.4
US History II
H
87.7
87.9
MOHS Q1 v. Quarterly Assessment
Differentials – World History 9
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Average Q1 MP Grade
Average of Q1 Quarterly Assessment
World Hist 9
81.2
81.7
World Hist 9 CP
81.2
83.7
World Hist 9 H
86.0
86.0
School Improvement Plans (SIPs)
 Each school developed an action plan that
includes SMART goals aligned to district goals.
 Goals are designed to improve school
performance in critical areas:





ELA (all students and at-risk populations)
Mathematics (all students and at-risk populations)
College and Career Readiness (PSAT, SAT, AP)
Technology use and integration
Parent involvement
School Improvement Plans (SIPs)
 Each SMART goal includes an ambitious target,
persons responsible, timeline for action steps,
and evidence of impact on learning.
 SMART goals are supported by the district’s
primary intervention strategies:





Increase time
Teach to understanding
Teach what matters
Increase effort
Personalize learning
SMART Goals - MOHS
MATH/ELA – Improve teaching and learning practices to
meet or exceed the designated PARCC Performance Based
Assessment and End-of-Year Exam Targets for “all
students” and subgroups in the ESEA Waiver.
• Schoolwide - % Proficiency
• ELA = 90%
Math = 90%
• Students with Disabilities - % Proficiency
• ELA = 74.3% Math = 60.8%
MOHS – Increase Time
Actions, Strategies and Interventions –
Regular Education and
Special Education
Evidence of Impact on Student Learning
1. ELA – New Course – Critical Reading
1. Identified 9th, 10th and 11th Grade
students scheduled for remedial
reading program and PARCC
readiness.
2. Math Workshop – 10th and 11th
Grade
2. (34) students identified and
scheduled
3. Foundations of Math Course
3. (44) students identified and
scheduled
4. Algebra I CP – 9th and 10th Grade
4. (154) students identified and
scheduled
5. Posting for ELA and Math Press and
Pull-Out programs instructors
5. Having difficulty procuring services in
this area. We will be working with parttime teachers and substitutes.
6. Introducing assignments and
6. December school-wide TESTNAV test
assessments utilizing on-line technology run scheduled with Technology
devices and tools (Google Forms)
Department.
MOHS – Increase Time
Actions, Strategies and Interventions –
Regular Education and
Special Education
Evidence of Impact on Student Learning
1. ELA Workshop – 10th and 11th
Grades
1. (45) students identified and
scheduled.
2. English I General
2. (63) students identified and
scheduled
3. PARCC Special Education Support will
be scheduled.
3. Use of Compass Learning and
Accellus in Lab Center
MOHS – Teach to Understanding
Actions, Strategies and Interventions –
Regular Education and
Special Education
Evidence of Impact on Student Learning
1. All Essential Questions and Enduring
Understandings will be aligned to focus on
development and transfer of all skills.
1. Professional Learning Community
minutes, Quarterly Exam comparisons,
Understanding by Design, Rigor and
Relevance
2. Teachers will use exit tickets – Google
Classroom tools – flipped classroom –
blended classroom techniques to promote
“GKT”.
2. Technology reports – Teacher
observations – PLC feedback – Student
feedback
3. Development and use of PARCC-style
EBSR questions, reading selections, and
writing prompts in formative and
summative assessments
3. Completed at PLC and department
meetings – Professional Development
/Teacher In-Service Days – September 2nd
and October 13th
4. PARCC rubric used to assess every writing
assignment (Prose Constructed Responses)
in ELA and Social Studies, aligning with at
least one SGO developed by every ELA and
SS team member
4. In-house PARCC-based assessment scores
have improved, as evidence by SGO
development and tracking.
MOHS – Teach to Understanding
Actions, Strategies and Interventions –
Regular Education and
Special Education
Evidence of Impact on Student Learning
1. Added exposure to PARCC-style content,
format, style, rigor (consistent with our ELA
goals from the past 3 years and Math goals
for the past year)
1. Students have been given practice PARCC
test tutorials and exams on Pearson –
practice using online platform and tools
specific to testing platform.
2. PARCC trainings, informational sessions,
and PLCs will update teachers on PARCC
strategies, curricular addendums and skills
alignment across the curriculum.
2. PLC minutes, Common Assessments,
Unit and Marking Period Assignments and
Expectations.
MOHS – Teach What Matters
Actions, Strategies and Interventions –
Regular Education and
Special Education
Evidence of Impact on Student Learning
1. All curricula will be aligned with
Common Core State Standards.
1. ELA completed and introduced 3 years
ago. Math is the process of rewriting
course curriculums. SGO Development –
Unit Plan Development using
Understanding by Design Principles
2. Development and use of PARCC-style
EBSR questions, reading selections, and
writing prompts in formative and
summative assessments
2. Completed at PLC and department
meetings – Professional
Development/Teacher In-Service Days –
September 2nd and October 13th
3. Assessment multiple choice questions
will be written as Evidence-Based
Structured Responses (EBSR), modeling
PARCC expectations
3. PLC discussions/data analysis and
department meeting minutes/trainings
MOHS – Increase Effort
Actions, Strategies and Interventions –
Regular Education and
Special Education
Evidence of Impact on Student Learning
1. Students will participate in PARCC
Readiness assemblies to heighten
awareness and preparation efforts.
1. Class meetings scheduled in September
and October to discuss PARCC points of
emphasis.
2. Marking Period Grades and Quarterly
Expectations are better aligned.
2. Identifying the balance between “earn”
and “learn” values has provided students
with realistic representations of
understanding and learning levels.
3. Renaissance Monthly Academic
Recognition Awards
3. Presented by Student Activities
Coordinator in conjunction with staff and
team leaders.
MOHS – Personalize Learning
Actions, Strategies and Interventions –
Regular Education and
Special Education
Evidence of Impact on Student Learning
1. Use of Technology (Chromebooks,
Computer Labs) to enhance the delivery of
instruction and student active participation
in the learning process.
1. Volume and Quality of Technology Use
2. Use of “flipped”/”blended” classroom
techniques and/or on-line remedial
programs.
2. Volume and Quality of Technology Use
3. PARCC and Simulated Assessments will
assist teachers and students as it pertains
individual readiness.
3. Use of technology to practice PARCC
assessments and related skills.
SMART Goals - MOHS
COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS - Improve teaching and learning practices
to meet or exceed the designated New Jersey Department of Education
Report Card in the area of College and Career Readiness.
• Improve Scholastic Aptitude Test Participation – 77% to 79%
• Improve % of Students Scoring a 1550 or Better on the Scholastic Aptitude
Test – 61% to 64%
• Improve Average Scholastic Aptitude Test Score – 1615 to 1620
• Increase PSAT Participation - 74% to 77% - Juniors
• Increase Number of Students Enrolled in Advanced Placement Courses
• Increase Number of Advanced Placement Exams Administered -356 to 365
• Increase the % of Students Taking at Least (1) Advanced Placement Exam
in Science, Math, Language Arts, or Social Studies
College and Career Readiness
Actions, Strategies and Interventions
1. Mount Olive High School will increase
the percentage of students who
participate in the PSAT.
300
1. Successfully promoted by Guidance
Department, Administration and Board of
Education.
266 252 276
250
200
Evidence of Impact on Student Learning
186
266 264
223 224
205 192198 180
182 178 187
176 175
190
146 162
11th Graders
150
10th Graders
100
50
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
11th Graders
10th Graders
2005
266
186
2006
252
176
2007
276
175
2008
223
205
2009
224
192
2010
198
182
2011
180
178
2012
187
146
2013
266
162
2014
264
190
MOHS - College and Career Readiness
Actions, Strategies and Interventions
Evidence of Impact on Student Learning
1. Mount Olive High School will increase
the percentage of students participating in
the Scholastic Aptitude Test.
1. Promoted through the Guidance
Department, Administration and Staff. Class
meeting presentations emphasized SAT
Registration, Preparation, and Performance.
2. Mount Olive High School will increase
the percentage of students earning a 1550
or above on the Scholastic Aptitude Test.
3. Mount Olive High School will increase
the number of enrollments in Advanced
Placement courses
4. Mount Olive High School will increase
the number of Advanced Placement exams
administered to students enrolled in
Advanced Placement courses.
2.
3. Promotion of Advanced Placement goals
with scheduling and college readiness.
4. Promotion of Advanced Placement goals
from staff and administration. Current
incentive program under review by the Board
of Education.
MOMS Sample SIP Strategies
• NWEA Testing – To determine students’ areas of strength
and weakness. Any student 210 or below on the NJASK
from 2013-2014 was tested.
• MOMS Academy – Direct, small group instruction after
school in ELA/MATH for academically at risk students
identified through multiple measures (grades, NJASK,
teacher rec). Provides an individualized learning path
developed through Compass Learning or Accellus. Paths
consist of 5 skills per marking period.
• BSI/Title I interventions – All students 210 or below
scheduled for supplemental instruction every other day
• Lunch/3R Support Program – Supports students who are
unable to attend the MOMS academy in the afternoon.
MOMS SIP Technology Goal
Students will use technology in the classroom a minimum
of 2 hours per day.
• Google Docs- All team teachers have been trained in Google Docs. A graduated
roll out and training began in October. All ELA, SS, Science teachers are now
using Google Docs for writing assignments and homework.
• Quizlet was introduced at a faculty meeting. MOMS is using all technology
resources to prepare our students for 21st Century Skills as well as PARCC.
• Amplify Rollout – All Amplify tablets have been deployed and are in use. 8th
grade teachers in all academic areas are using the tablets for internet usage or
with the specialized program Amplify provides.
• Technology at MOMS is approximately 6393 hours of usage for the month of
November. Per student, it is 5.3 hours per student over a ten day period
SIP – Compass Utilization
SIP - Edu Trends – Nov 2014
SIPs – Elementary Strategies
 Increase time




Sizzle (before school program)
STARS (after school program)
BSI (supplemental during school program)
Revision of master schedule (Sandshore)
 Teach to Understanding
 Data from benchmark assessments to ensure mastery
 Re-teach, retake policy for grades below C
 Smart shots (videotaped checks for understanding)
SIPs – Elementary Strategies
 Teach What Matters
 PLCs develop lessons and assessments that address
curriculum and PARCC readiness
 SGOs focus on areas in need of improvement
 Implementation of standards-based report cards
 Increase Effort
 Powerschool parent portal and automated notifications
 Rewards/recognitions for student achievement
SIPs – Elementary Strategies
 Personalize Missing Skills





Targeted instruction in small group settings
Compass Learning
Dreambox
Accellus
Response to Intervention
SIP School-based Initiatives









Monthly parent tip sheets and meetings (Sandshore)
Great Books for literacy (Sandshore)
25 Book Initiative (Mt. View)
Minute Math Clubs (Mt. View)
Math 24/First in Math (Mt. View, Tinc, Sandshore)
AIMSWeb weekly progress monitoring (CMS)
Parent Institutes and Coffee with Principal (CMS)
Videotaped lessons analyzed in PLCs (CMS)
Razz for Kids (Tinc)