Overview of Academic Achievement and Superintendent Goals

September 17, 2013

3-8 Grade Performance

3rd ELA (7th 2012) Greene 3 ELA 42.9% 1

Downsville 3 ELA 35.3% 2

Unatego 3 ELA 35.3% 3

GMU 3 ELA 32.1% 4

BG 3 ELA 31.9% 5

Delhi 3 ELA 31.4% 6

Franklin 3 ELA 26.7% 7

Walton 3 ELA 20.8% 8

Hancock 3 ELA 20.0% 9

Sidney 3 ELA 19.5% 10

Norwich 3 ELA 17.5% 11

Oxford 3 ELA 16.9% 12

Sherburne 3 ELA 16.2% 13

UV 3 ELA 15.2% 14

OV 3 ELA 9.1% 15

Afton 3 ELA 7.7% 16

3rd Math (6th 2012) Downsville 3 Math 41.2% 1

Franklin 3 Math 40.0% 2

Greene 3 Math 38.0% 3

Walton 3 Math 37.7% 4

Sidney 3 Math 31.3% 5

Unatego 3 Math 29.4% 6

Delhi 3 Math 29.4% 7

GMU 3 Math 28.6% 8

UV 3 Math 28.3% 9

Oxford 3 Math 25.4% 10

Sherburne 3 Math 22.4% 11

Norwich 3 Math 20.4% 12

BG 3 Math 17.1% 13

Hancock 3 Math 16.0% 14

OV 3 Math 9.0% 15

Afton 3 Math 7.7% 16

4th ELA (11th 2012) Delhi 4 ELA 36.5% 1

OV 4 ELA 33.4% 2

Greene 4 ELA 33.3% 3

GMU 4 ELA 30.4% 4

Sherburne 4 ELA 25.9% 5

Sidney 4 ELA 25.8% 6

Unatego 4 ELA 24.7% 7

Franklin 4 ELA 22.3% 8

Walton 4 ELA 20.0% 9

Oxford 4 ELA 19.2% 10

Afton 4 ELA 18.8% 11

UV 4 ELA 16.4% 12

Norwich 4 ELA 14.3% 13

Downsville 4 ELA 10.6% 14

BG 4 ELA 11.3% 15

Hancock 4 ELA 8.4% 16

4th Math (14th 2012) Sidney 4 Math 50.9% 1

Greene 4 Math 46.2% 2

Delhi 4 Math 45.2% 3

Afton 4 Math 37.5% 4

GMU 4 Math 34.7% 5

Unatego 4 Math 30.2% 6

Sherburne 4 Math 26.7% 7

Walton 4 Math 25.7% 8

Oxford 4 Math 23.0% 9

Norwich 4 Math 21.5% 10

OV 4 Math 20.0% 11

BG 4 Math 16.1% 12

Franklin 4 Math 15.8% 13

UV 4 Math 13.4% 14

Hancock 4 Math 12.5% 15

Downsville 4 Math 5.3% 16

5th ELA (13th 2012) Franklin 5 ELA 53.3% 1

Downsville 5 ELA 35.3% 2

Greene 5 ELA 35.2% 3

GMU 5 ELA 32.5% 4

Delhi 5 ELA 32.0% 5

Unatego 5 ELA 25.8% 6

Afton 5 ELA 24.5% 7

Sidney 5 ELA 24.0% 8

OV 5 ELA 21.5% 9

Walton 5 ELA 18.8% 10

Hancock 5 ELA 18.5% 11

Norwich 5 ELA 17.4% 12

UV 5 ELA 15.4% 13

Sherburne 5 ELA 13.0% 14

Oxford 5 ELA 10.5% 15

BG 5 ELA 8.5% 16

5th Math (13th 2012) GMU 5 Math 37.5% 1

Sidney 5 Math 35.0% 2

Afton 5 Math 31.1% 3

Greene 5 Math 26.8% 4

Downsville 5 Math 23.6% 5

Norwich 5 Math 21.6% 6

OV 5 Math 21.5% 7

Walton 5 Math 20.3% 8

Franklin 5 Math 20.0% 9

BG 5 Math 18.8% 10

Delhi 5 Math 16.0% 11

UV 5 Math 13.6% 12

Sherburne 5 Math 11.7% 13

Unatego 5 Math 8.2% 14

Hancock 5 Math 6.9% 15

Oxford 5 Math 3.5% 16

6th ELA (9th 2012)

Franklin 6 ELA 47.6% 1

Sherburne 6 ELA 35.2% 2

BG 6 ELA 32.5% 3

Norwich 6 ELA 30.6% 4

Greene 6 ELA 27.7% 5

Hancock 6 ELA 26.9% 6

UV 6 ELA 26.1% 7

Sidney 6 ELA 24.3% 8

Walton 6 ELA 23.7% 9

Oxford 6 ELA 22.0% 10

Unatego 6 ELA 21.2% 11

Afton 6 ELA 17.8% 12

Delhi 6 ELA 17.4% 13

OV 6 ELA 16.0% 14

Downsville 6 ELA 11.8% 15

GMU 6 ELA 10.0% 16

6th Math (12th 2012) Hancock 6 Math 42.3% 1

Sidney 6 Math 37.0% 2

Delhi 6 Math 33.3% 3

BG 6 Math 30.7% 4

Norwich 6 Math 25.1% 5

Greene 6 Math 25.0% 6

Sherburne 6 Math 24.4% 7

Franklin 6 Math 19.1% 8

OV 6 Math 16.7% 9

Oxford 6 Math 16.2% 10

Downsville 6 Math 11.8% 11

Unatego 6 Math 11.8% 12

Afton 6 Math 10.7% 13

Walton 6 Math 10.4% 14

UV 6 Math 10.1% 15

GMU 6 Math 10.0% 16

7th ELA (6th 2012) Greene 7 ELA 40.8% 1

Delhi 7 ELA 40.0% 2

Franklin 7 ELA 34.8% 3

BG 7 ELA 35.6% 4

Sidney 7 ELA 33.8% 5

Sherburne 7 ELA 32.3% 6

Hancock 7 ELA 31.6% 7

GMU 7 ELA 30.0% 8

UV 7 ELA 28.6% 9

Walton 7 ELA 25.6% 10

Norwich 7 ELA 22.2% 11

Downsville 7 ELA 21.9% 12

Oxford 7 ELA 21.1% 13

Unatego 7 ELA 19.5% 14

Afton 7 ELA 10.0% 15

OV 7 ELA 9.1% 16

7th Math (2nd 2012) Delhi 7 Math 34.5% 1

Hancock 7 Math 31.6% 2

Greene 7 Math 28.8% 3

GMU 7 Math 25.0% 4

Sidney 7 Math 22.7% 5

Franklin 7 Math 21.7% 6

Unatego 7 Math 21.0% 7

Oxford 7 Math 17.5% 8

BG 7 Math 16.9% 9

Norwich 7 Math 13.4% 10

Sherburne 7 Math 9.2% 11

Walton 7 Math 9.0% 12

Downsville 7 Math 6.5% 13

OV 7 Math 6.1% 14

UV 7 Math 3.6% 15

Afton 7 Math 3.3% 16

8th ELA (5th 2012) Delhi 8 ELA 43.1% 1

Franklin 8 ELA 34.6% 2

Norwich 8 ELA 33.7% 3

Hancock 8 ELA 32.1% 4

Walton 8 ELA 31.5% 5

Sidney 8 ELA 30.6% 6

Unatego 8 ELA 30.1% 7

BG 8 ELA 29.9% 8

Sherburne 8 ELA 29.0% 9

Greene 8 ELA 26.4% 10

Oxford 8 ELA 25.4% 11

Downsville 8 ELA 23.6% 12

Afton 8 ELA 19.0% 13

UV 8 ELA 17.9% 14

GMU 8 ELA 15.3% 15

OV 8 ELA 5.0% 16

8th Math (5th 2012) Delhi 8 Math 26.3% 1

Greene 8 Math 24.1% 2

Norwich 8 Math 17.6% 3

Oxford 8 Math 14.9% 4

BG 8 Math 13.4% 5

Downsville 8 Math 11.8% 6

Sherburne 8 Math 10.0% 7

Sidney 8 Math 9.4% 8

Unatego 8 Math 8.3% 9

Hancock 8 Math 7.1% 10

Walton 8 Math 4.1% 11

Franklin 8 Math 3.8% 12

Afton 8 Math 2.4% 13

UV 8 Math 1.8% 14

GMU 8 Math 0.0% 15

OV 8 Math 0.0% 16

Overall Performance ELA (11th in 2012, 13th in 2011, and 15th in 2010)

Franklin 118 43 36.4%

Greene 452 154 34.1%

Delhi 323 110 34.1%

GMU 177 47 26.5%

Sidney 452 119 26.3%

Unatego 447 115 25.7%

BG 359 92 25.6%

Sherburne 553 140 25.3%

Walton 443 104 23.5%

Norwich 826 189 22.9%

Hancock 149 34 22.8%

Downsville 119 27 22.7%

UV 359 72 20.1%

Oxford 360 70 19.4%

Afton 232 39 16.8%

OV 158 26 16.5%

Overall Performance Math (10th in 2012, 12th in 2011, and 14th in 2010) Greene 447 140 31.3%

Delhi 320 100 31.2%

Sidney 454 136 29.9%

GMU 177 43 24.3%

Norwich 829 164 19.8%

BG 361 70 19.4%

Hancock 151 28 18.5%

Franklin 119 22 18.5%

Unatego 443 81 18.3%

Walton 444 79 17.8%

Sherburne 541 95 17.6%

Afton 232 40 17.2%

Oxford 360 60 16.6%

Downsville 118 18 15.3%

OV 157 20 12.8%

UV 360 41 11.4%

Conversion

• State sent out conversion tables to be able to compare 2012 data to 2013 data.

ELA Performance (Converted)

K 90 88 97.8%

1st 79 61 77.2%

2nd 73 70 95.9%

3rd 82 32 39.0%

4th 58 31 53.4%

382 282 73.8%

K-4 Math (Converted)

K 91 90 98.9%

1st 79 55 69.6%

2nd 73 70 95.9%

3rd 82 56 67.9%

4th 59 44 74.6%

384 315 82.0%

766 597 77.9%

5-8 ELA (Converted)

5th 79 41 51.8%

6th 74 37 50.0%

7th 74 41 55.4%

8th 85 44 51.8%

312 163 52.2%

5-8 Grade Math (Converted)

5th 80 58 72.5%

6th 73 46 63.0%

7th 75 54 72.0%

8th 85 47 55.3%

313 205 65.5%

625 368 58.9%

ELA Compared

ELA 2012 2013 Growth

3 48 39 -9

4 50 53.4 3.4

5 44.6 51.8 7.2

6 51.3 50 -1.3

7 47.1 55.4 8.3

8 50.7 51.8 1.1

Math Compared

Math 2012 2013 Growth

3 63.8 67.9 4.1

4 52.4 74.6 22.2

5 49.3 72.5 23.2

6 51.3 63 11.7

7 70.6 72 1.4

8 57.1 55.3 -1.8

3-8 Grade Math

# Tested # Prof Percentage Rank

Vestal 1614 724 44.8% 1

ME 1099 434 39.5% 2

Tioga 464 148 31.9% 3

UE 1808 572 31.6% 4

Greene 447 140 31.3% 5

Delhi 320 100 31.2% 6

Windsor 751 231 30.8% 7

Sidney 454 136 29.9% 8

Owego 973 282 29.0% 9

SV 691 199 28.8% 10

CF 735 191 26.0% 11

CV 798 204 25.6% 12

WP 650 166 25.5% 13

GMU 177 43 24.3% 14

Newark Valley 548 127 23.2% 15

Norwich 829 164 19.8% 16

JC 1160 225 19.4% 17

BG 361 70 19.4% 18

Harpursville 409 77 18.8% 19

Hancock 151 28 18.5% 20

Franklin 119 22 18.5% 21

Unatego 443 81 18.3% 22

Deposit 259 47 18.2% 23

Walton 444 79 17.8% 24

Sherburne 541 95 17.6% 25

Afton 232 40 17.2% 26

Oxford 360 60 16.6% 27

Downsville 118 18 15.3% 28

OV 157 20 12.8% 29

Binghamton 2516 319 12.7% 30

UV 360 41 11.4% 31

The one quality all successful people have is persistence. Their willingness to spend more time accomplishing a task and to persevere in face of difficult odds.

-----Joyce Brothers

High School Results Test 2011 2012 2013 Growth 2011 2012 2013 Growth

Global 80 85 91 6 22 42 43 1

US History 84 90 97 7 39 51 67 16

ELA 91 88 96 8 49 43 51 8

Algebra 49 75 90 15 2 21 12 -9

Geometry 59 92 93 1 7 28 28 6

Algebra II 35 45 29 -16 10 2 12 10

Physics 77 100 83 -17 26 17 25 8

Living Env. 95 96 94 -2 40 54 38 -16

Chemistry 65 78 78 0 6 9 10 1

Earth Science 66 90 24 16 44 28

College Courses

College Class Offerings

26 different course offerings

Seniors 56 out of 86 students (65%)

264 Courses taken

732 credits earned

$209,965 worth of tuition (No cost to the students)

College and Career Ready

• Algebra (80%)

– 2010-2011 15%

– 2011-2012 32%

– 2012-2013 39%

• ELA (75%)

– 2010-2011 (NS)

– 2011-2012 72%

– 2012-2013 84%

So what is next??

• Successful schools do the following:

– Strong focus on academic achievement

– Clear and viable curriculum

– Frequent assessment of student progress and multiple opportunities for improvement

– Have a strong monitoring and feedback system for instructional practice that includes clear expectations and success driven outcomes.

Have a strong monitoring and feedback system for instructional practice that

includes clear expectations and success driven outcomes.

• 2 Instructional coaches and 1 Director of School Improvement working with Director of Curriculum.

– More emphasis on practice of teaching.

– Clear expectations of continual improvement.

– Focus has been on the what and the outcome. Focus can know shift to the how.

Focus School Determination

• From the 2009-2010 school year.

• Still requires improvement plan and SED visits.

• QIP is back in place for students with disabilities.

• Classification is not related to regular education results. All special education results.

Focus for this year

• Maintain a strong curriculum to assessment program.

– Increase the frequency of “teacher” generated formative assessment.

• Improve RTI practice.

– Reduce the number of referrals to special education.

• Increase focus on writing. Implement quarterly writing prompts and improve vertical alignment.

Special Education vs. Intervention

• Special Education

– Disabilities only

• Intervention (Regular Ed)

– Providing support to the regular education process (help)

Summary of Goals

• Maintain a strong curriculum to assessment program. – Increase the frequency of “teacher” generated

formative assessment.

• Improve the RTI/Special Education process addressing the intervention process.

• Increase focus on writing. Implement quarterly writing prompts and improve vertical alignment.