State Testing 2016

naperville203

2016%20State%20Testing%20v2

State Testing 2016

Board of Education

November 7, 2016

1


Conclusions

• Achievement data improved

• Naperville District 203 compares well

when compared to benchmark Unit

Districts

• Gaps identified in the June data

presentation are confirmed with this spring

test

2


Outcomes

• Review the State Testing data using grade

level and subgroups

• Review how schools use data in the

School Improvement Process

3


Strategic Blueprint

• 2.16.A

Implement a common research-based school

improvement process that maximizes

continuous student growth and achievement

• 2.18.C

Implement a balanced assessment system to

prepare staff and students for success with the

next generation of assessments.

4


State Testing Participation

5


PARCC Changes

• Reduction in testing time

• Combination of the Performance Based

Assessment window and the End of Year

window

• Elimination of PARCC at the High School

next spring

• Earlier release of data

6


PARCC Sub-Claims

• ELA

– Reading

• Informational Text

• Literary Text

• Vocabulary

– Writing

• Expression

• Conventions

• Math

– Content

• Major Content

• Supporting

Content

– Process

• Modeling

• Reasoning

7


PARCC Performance Levels

Proficiency,

or ready for the next grade level

Level 1:

Did Not Yet

Meet

Expectations

Level 2:

Partially Met

Expectations

Level 3:

Approached

Expectations

Level 4:

Met

Expectations

Level 5:

Exceeded

Expectations

8


PARCC in District 203

9


PARCC ELA by Grade

10


PARCC Math by Grade

66

11


PARCC Achievement Gaps

Subgroup ELA 2015 ELA 2016 Math 2015 Math 2016

IEP 17 17 19 18

LEP 17 15 25 28

Low Income 36 35 32 29

Black 28 27 21 20

Hispanic 42 43 34 37

All Students 68 68 60 63

% of students at levels 4 or 5

12


Large Unit District Benchmarking

68

13


Large Unit District Benchmarking

58

52

52

14


Alternative State Assessment

15


Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM)

Proficiency,

or the % ready for the next level

Emerging

Approaching

Target

At Target

Advanced

16


Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM)

ELA

Math

17


Using State Tests

School Improvement

• A foundation of the School Improvement

Process is the use of data

• Assessment should inform instruction

• Levels for Data usage

– District

– School

– Class

– Individual

18


Conclusions

• Achievement data improved

• Naperville District 203 compares well

when compared to benchmark Unit

Districts

• Gaps identified in the June data

presentation are confirmed with this spring

test

19


Next Steps

• Continue to monitor the achievement gap

• Work with schools to generate targeted goals

to close achievement gaps

• Transition to the SAT

• Create a deeper understanding of the

Dynamic Learning Maps and the needs of

staff to effectively deliver the learning

associated with the essential elements

• Explore the use of percentiles to measure

individual growth on PARCC

20


Questions?

21

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines