| Author |
Message |
    
Fringe
| | Posted on Monday, March 12, 2001 - 8:43 am: |     |
Comparing the combined performance of South Orange - Maplewwod School District 4th Graders on the Spring 1999 & Spring 2000 Elementary School Proficiency Assessment (ESPA) in Mathematics with those of all school districts in South Orange-Maplewood School District's socio-economic grouping (District
Factor Group I) the rankings are:
* MATH - Partially Proficient
1999 - Of 457 SO-M students, 23.9% scored PARTIALLY PROFICIENT compared
to 13.8% of the 16,390 DFG I 4th Graders.
Three of 89 DFG I districts had a higher percentage of 4th graders scoring PARTIALLY PROFICIENT than SO-M. One district had the same percentage as SO-M.
2000 - Of 437 SO-M students 19.2% scored PARTIALLY PROFICIENT compared
to 9.5% of the 16,141 DFG I 4th Graders.
Three of 88 DFG I districts had a higher percentage of 4th graders scoring PARTIALLY PROFICIENT than SO-M.
* MATH - Advanced Proficient
1999 - Of 457 SO-M students, 32.4% scored ADVANCED PROFICIENT compared
to 33.3% of the 16,390 DFG I 4th Graders.
43 of 89 DFG I districts had a greater percentage of students scoring ADVANCED PROFICIENT than SO-M.
2000 - Of 437 SO-M students 29.5% scored ADVANCED PROFICIENT compared to
38.7% of the 16,141 DFG I 4th Graders.
71 of 88 DFG I districts had a greater percentage of students scoring ADVANCED PROFICIENT than SO-M.
* MATH - MEAN
1999 - The 457 SO-M students had a MEAN score of 225 compared to a MEAN of
232.9 for the 16,390 DFG I 4th Graders.
76 of 89 DFG I districts had a higher MEAN score than SO-M.
2000 - The 437 SO-M students had a MEAN score of 227 compared to MEAN of
238.1 for the 16,141 DFG I 4th Graders.
83 of 88 DFG I districts had a higher MEAN score than SO-M.
Compared with the 66 districts with elementary schools (including SO-M) in DFG GH, the next lower socio-economic grouping, the rankings are:
* MATH - Partially Proficient
1999 - Of 457 SO-M students, 23.9% scored PARTIALLY PROFICIENT compared to
20.6% of the 12,152 DFG GH 4th Graders.
13 of 66 DFG GH districts had a greater percentage of students scoring PARTIALLY PROFICIENT than SO-M. One district had the same percentage as SO-M.
2000 - Of 437 SO-M students 19.2% scored PARTIALLY PROFICIENT compared to
16.6% of the 11,98 DFG GH 4th Graders.
19 of 66 DFG GH districts had a greater percentage of students scoring PARTIALLY PROFICIENT than SO-M.
* MATH - Advanced Proficient
1999 - Of 457 SO-M students, 32.4% scored ADVANCED PROFICIENT compared to
25.2% of the 12,157 DFG GH 4th Graders.
18 of 66 DFG GH districts had a greater percentage of students scoring ADVANCED PROFICIENT than SO-M.
2000 - Of 437 SO-M students 29.5% scored ADVANCED PROFICIENT compared to
29.5% of the 11,928 DFG GH 4th Graders.
33 of 66 DFG GH districts had a greater percentage of students scoring ADVANCED PROFICIENT than SO-M.
* MATH - MEAN
1999 - The 457 SO-M students had a MEAN score of 225 compared to a MEAN of
225.1 for the 12,152 DFG GH 4th Graders.
34 of 66 DFG GH districts had a higher MEAN score than SO-M.
2000 - The 437 SO-M students had a MEAN score of 227 compared to MEAN of 230.6 for the 11, 928 DFG GH 4th Graders.
48 of 66 DFG GH districts had a higher MEAN score than SO-M.
Data taken from the NJ Report Card and the "May 1999 [and 2000]
Elementary SchoolProficiency Assessment (ESPA) State Summary" published
by
the NJ Department of Education in December 1999 & January 2001.
Scores of Special Education and Limited English Proficient students were
not included in the calculations. Scores were reported as: "Partially
Proficient (100-199)", "Proficient (250-249)", "Advanced Proficient
(250-300)"
"The District Factor Group (DFG) is an indicator of the socioeconomic status of citizens [not students] in each district and has been useful for the comparative reporting of test results from New Jersey's statewide testing programs. ... The DFG designations were updated again in 1992 using the following demographic variables from the 1990 United States Census.
A. Percent of adult residents who failed to complete high school.
B. Percent of residents who attended college
C. Occupational status of adult household members: ...
D. Population density : persons per square mile
E. Income: median family income
F. Unemployment: percent of those in the work force who receive some unemployment compensation
G. Poverty: percent of residents below the poverty level
The variables described above were combined using a statistical technique called principal component analysis, which resulted in a single measure of socioeconomic status for each district. Districts were then ranked according to their score on this measure and divided into eigt groups based on the score interval in which their scores were located. ...
DFG # of districts
A 35
B 78
CD 75
DE 100
FG 87
GH 78
I 105
J 15"
[Not all districts have schools in each of the three categorys. A few have no schools]
JTL |
Ffof
| | Posted on Monday, March 12, 2001 - 5:52 pm: | |
JTL- If we look at our numbers compared to the "I" group (or whatever is the next lower group to GH) do we look any better? Also, I haven't seen any numbers comparing our own schools to each other. Has that been released yet? |
Fringe
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2001 - 8:50 am: | |
The New Jersey State Department of Education released the State Summary referred to above in January 2001. The data for each elementary school in the state is contained therein. An abreviated version can be found on the Report Card at the NJDoE web site.
Dr. Barker, district assessment coordinator, has a copy of the State Summary, as do I and the News-Record. Citizens interested in obtaining their own copy can do so by contacting the NJDoE publications office in Trenton.
The group below GH is FG. Those wishing to compute SO-M's performance v that group should can easily do so by referring to the data contained in the State Summary.
JTL |
|