Page 1

2014

ANNUAL REPORT


2


Table of Contents Who We Are Our Roots The Problem We’re Solving Our Solution Our Team Our Leadership 

6 6 7 8 9

What We Do Model Design  2013-14 School Partnerships

10 12

Our First Model: Teach to One: Math Personalizing the Traditional Classroom to Accelerate Learning 14 How the Model Works 14 Step 1: Source The Lessons  14 Step 2: Assess Students 15 Step 3: Change the Classroom 16 Step 4: Match Each Student to the Optimal Lesson 18 Step 5: Pulling it All Together 18 Rounds: How We Organize Learning 19 Teacher role in Teach to One: Math22

Year 2 Results Summary of Year Two Results Looking Forward: Building on Early Successes

24 25

Our Funding Partners

26

Appendix Appendix A: 2014-15 New Classrooms Regional Enrollment Appendix B: School Data Sheets Appendix C: Audited FY14 Financials

28 30 45

3


Dear Friends and Supporters, We have much to be excited about as we reflect on our second year of partnering with schools to implement our Teach to One: Math learning model. While results from the 2012-13 school year were promising, the 2013-14 school year student achievement results show that we are more reliably and effectively helping to accelerate learning for all students—no matter their starting place. Students in Teach to One achieved gains in math that exceeded the national average by 47%—equivalent to learning nearly 1.5 years’ worth of math in a single year. According to an independent evaluation conducted by Professor Doug Ready of Teachers College, Columbia University, student mathematics gains in 11 of 15 schools that participated in the 2013-14 school year were significantly above national norms. While we are proud of these results and the committed school communities we partner with, we know there is still so much more that we must do to continue to improve Teach to One in the coming years. We believe these results are still only the beginning of what thoughtfully-designed personalized learning models like Teach to One: Math can accomplish. While there is widespread agreement around the need for our country to improve K-12 education for all students, for decades, educators, academics, parents, and policymakers have debated how this can be done. And though we have seen great progress on a number of fronts, as a nation we have yet to commit significant resources towards the research and development needed to create new approaches to teaching and learning that result in better educational outcomes for all students.

We created New Classrooms because we believe there is a better way. At New Classrooms we are committed to using our first instructional model, Teach to One: Math, as a credible and durable proof point for showing how personalized learning can accelerate and deepen student learning. Working in close partnership with pioneering schools, New Classrooms is helping school leaders replace their textbook-based math program with personalized learning for every student every day. And by demonstrating that there is an alternate credible vision for how school can work, we hope to unleash a wave of investment in innovation and help spark the creation and adoption of other

4


transformative models that enable all students to reach their full learning potential. We hope that one day, our grandchildren will respond incredulously when we tell them about how school functioned when we were students. Establishing such a proof point is about more than getting better results than traditional school. We must also show that our model can be replicated in a range of school contexts; is supportive of and liked by teachers and school leaders; is affordable and sustainable for schools and districts in the long-term; and has the support of a wide range of stakeholders in the policy and education communities. We believe we are on a course to do just that. We look forward to the year ahead, and we are grateful to have you with us on this journey.

Joel Rose

Chris Rush

Cofounder and CEO

Cofounder and Chief Program Officer

5


Who We Are Our Roots We launched New Classrooms Innovation Partners as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization in June 2011 in order to enable schools to deliver personalized learning for every student, every day. We believe that personalization is not simply about new software, technology, or teacher training, but instead requires thoughtfully reimagining

and reconfiguring all that goes into the classroom experience. New Classrooms was founded by much of the same team that created School of One for the New York City public schools. The NYC Department of Education launched its School of One pilot in the summer of 2009. By November, the model was named one of the top inventions of 2009 by Time magazine. It also received positive recognition in The New  York Times, Huffington Post, Atlantic Monthly, Education Next, and Education Week. After School of One’s incubation at the Department of Education, co-founders Joel Rose and Chris Rush established New Classrooms in 2011 to build a new model using the lessons they had learned to bring personalized learning to more schools and districts across the United States. In the 2012–13 school year, New  Classrooms implemented its first personalized instructional model, Teach to One: Math, for 3,100 students in grades 6-8. In the 2013-14 school year, New Classrooms partnered with 15 pioneering schools to replace their traditional mathematics instruction with Teach to One: Math. Today, we serve 6,000 students in grades 5-8.

The Problem We’re Solving Our nation’s current system of schooling—with one teacher and between 20 and 30 students in a factory-model classroom—has gone relatively unchanged for well

6

over a century. It is an approach that assumes all students come to school at the same academic starting point and learn at the same rate and in the same way. This assumption simply does not reflect reality. In all types of classrooms and across all income levels, there is great variability of incoming performance levels, and learning rates. This presents teachers with the nearly impossible challenge of meeting dozens of individual students’ separate and unique needs simultaneously each day. New students’ wide range in skills and knowledge is the clearest example of this challenge. For example, at our partner schools, participating sixth graders took an assessment at the beginning of the school year to determine their incoming academic proficiency level. The chart on the opposite page shows the incoming distribution of scores in this one grade of students, as measured by NWEA’s Measures of Academic Progress (MAP). As the chart on the opposite page shows, some students can enter a sixth-grade class at a fourth-grade level alongside some peers at a second-grade level and others at a seventh-grade level. We see a similar trend in individual partner schools as well. To address this range in students’ academic starting points, educators often use a technique called “differentiated instruction,” an educational strategy that requires the classroom teacher to provide different types of instruction to different types of


Del Barnill, Parent of 7th grade Student at McClintock Middle School

learners. In theory, the approach makes great sense: the only way for an individual teacher to meet each student’s unique needs is to develop different strategies and lessons for different students. In practice, however, expecting a teacher to do this every day— while also following a school district’s standard curriculum—is almost impossible. A teacher can teach only one lesson at a time. And even if a teacher aspires to use technology tools and other resources to meet each student’s needs, the time and effort required to plan even one day of differentiated instruction is enough to dissuade even the most talented of teachers from making it routine.

Our Solution We believe there is a better way. Over the last quarter century, digital technology has helped to transform

Like the name of the program says, Teach to One….If your child needs a little bit more instruction, then it’s there for you. If your child is moving at light speed, it’s there for you. And if your child is middle of the road and is comfortable where they are, it’s there for you. ‘Cause it’s Teach to One.

and advance nearly every other ways that leverage both the talents industry in our nation. Yet previous of teachers and the power of efforts to leverage technology technology. We call this approach a to support teachers have largely “personalized instructional model.” tinkered at the margins of the classroom itself—three computers At New Classrooms, we design in the back of the classroom, an personalized instructional models interactive whiteboard instead that leverage classroom design, of a chalkboard, and access to teacher talent, and technology to on-demand videos, to name just a enable personalized learning for every student every day. We then few. support the implementation of These innovations have largely these models within partner schools failed to solve the fundamental while sharing in the accountability challenge of differentiated for student outcomes. instruction. Most are simply tools Teach to One: Math is our first for teachers to use within the same, personalized instructional model. standard, factory-model classroom. Over time, we expect to design That’s why our efforts focus less new models for different subjects on designing technology-based and in different grade spans. tools and more on redesigning the classroom experience itself in

Grade Level Proficiency of Incoming 6th Graders 350 300 250

Figure 1. Students who are in the same grade can enter at very different levels. Incoming 6th graders participating in Teach to One in the fall of 2013 began the year with a wide range of math proficiency.

200 150 100 50 0

K

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

Student Grade-Level Proficiency

7th

8th

9th-11th

7


Our Values Our organizational strength is rooted in our core values. As we pursue a vision to personalize learning for each student, these values guide us through the little decisions and the big ones.

A Student Centered Orientation

Support for Great Teaching

Everything we do is focused on helping students learn more in ways that are personalized, engaging, meaningful, and measurably effective.

We believe that great teachers are vital to our work, and we are committed to innovations that help teachers spend more time focusing on the quality of their instruction.

Our Team Our team is composed of individuals committed to our core values and dedicated to helping New Classrooms achieve its vision. Our work ranges from providing direct, hands-on support to teachers and students to assessing the value of different lessons to designing, deploying, and managing technology. Accordingly, members of our team have experience in education, technology, product management, law, finance, operations, design, and data systems in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. In all, our team has expanded to include more than 60 employees who work in the field with our partner schools and in our central office supporting and improving our programs.

Dominick D’Angelo, Principal, I.S. 228 This is a game changer. We are changing the way we do the business of education, of teaching, and of learning. We are focusing on the learning of every student.

8

New Classrooms is divided into five core groups: academics, field, technology and operations, people and administration, and external. Our academics team is responsible for designing our academic framework and content by determining what students should be learning and how they should be experiencing Teach to One: Math. This means designing content; forging partnerships with content creators; identifying skills; and developing and refining assessment questions. Our field team is responsible for coaching teachers, troubleshooting issues that arise at the school level, overseeing implementation, and working to support schools and students. Our technology and operations team produces, refines, and manages IT products and services and oversees daily central operations to power our model. Our people and administration team is responsible for finance, human resources, recruiting, contracting, and office operations. Finally, our external team manages our expansion and partnership efforts, communications, and fundraising.


Bold Solutions for Schools We are committed to innovations that are more than tools for educators. Rather, we aspire to develop new models for instruction that are both bold in their design and flexible in their adaptability to schools.

Responsible Growth

A Culture that Fosters Innovation and Learning

We believe in learning by doing. We incubate early-stage innovations in lower stakes We are committed to learning environments such as in summer from our experiences, from our and after-school contexts where partners, and from the students we can rapidly iterate, troubleshoot, we serve. We are a team that and closely measure impact. We values imaginative thinking, believe widespread scale should superior execution, and open come only once these innovations and purposeful collaboration. have been validated.

Our Leadership Joel Rose is the cofounder and Chief Executive Officer of New Classrooms. Previously, he was the Chief Executive Officer of School of One. Prior to conceptualizing and leading School of One, Joel served as Chief Executive for Human Capital and as Chief of Staff to the Deputy Chancellor at the New York City Department of Education. He has been involved in education for more than 15 years, first as a fifth grade teacher in Houston and later as a senior executive at Edison Schools, where he served as the company’s Associate General Counsel, Chief of Staff, General Manager, and Vice President for School Operations. Christopher Rush is the cofounder and Chief Program Officer of New Classrooms Innovation Partners and a Pahara-Aspen Education Fellow at the Aspen Institute. Most recently, he led the overall conceptualization, design, and implementation of the School of One/Teach to One personalized learning programs which were named one of Time Magazine’s Top 50 Inventions of the Year. Previously, he led design and development of Amplify’s (formerly Wireless Generation) mCLASS reporting systems and initiated the creation of their consulting services group, serving as its Executive Director. Additionally, Chris worked with the NYCDOE, co-leading the design of the of their citywide parent, teacher, and administrator longitudinal data system. Prior to that, Chris specialized in financial management & IT development services at IBM and also founded a pair of small tech startups during the early dot-com era.

Lizz Pawlson is the Chief Growth Officer at New Classrooms Innovations Partners. Prior to joining New Classrooms, she was the Chief Operating Officer for Explore Schools, a Brooklyn-based charter management organization. While there, she led organizational expansion and fundraising efforts resulting in growth from a single school into a network serving over 1,500 students and the achievement of organizational financial sustainability. Prior to her time at Explore, she served as the Director of New Site Development for the KIPP Foundation during the organization’s growth from 38 to 88 schools nationwide. She holds an MBA from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Susan Fine is the Chief Academic Officer of New Classrooms Innovation Partners. Susan served as Senior Academic Advisor for School of One since early 2011. Susan formerly worked as the Executive Director of The Urban Assembly in New York City and the Director of Alternative Certification at Pace University. Susan has 15 years of diverse experience as an educator, having taught elementary and middle school for ten years in London and New York City and serving as a professor of education and education policy at Pace University, Queens College, and Teachers College. She earned her undergraduate degree in Elementary Education at the University of Illinois, Champagne-Urbana, and a Masters degree in Remedial Reading and a Ph.D. in Politics and Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. 

9


What We Do Model Design We create personalized instructional models designed to enable schools to meet the unique needs of each student each day. By coherently integrating academics, operations, and technology into a holistic approach to instruction, our models are designed to make better use of time and other school resources by maximizing the full potential of teachers and technology. To create the most effective models, we leverage national philanthropic support to conduct extensive research and development. The costs of developing new models can be high since significant academic, operational, and technical hurdles must be addressed and iterated upon over multiple years of trials. However, the investment pays off: once a new model is fully developed, it can be implemented in schools across the country, affecting thousands of students over multiple years.

Delivering on the promise of personalized learning for every student every day

Support great teaching

Leverage technology

Offer diverse instructional resources

School Implementation Once New Classrooms designs a new model, we work in close collaboration with principals, teachers, school management organizations, administrators, local philanthropy partners, and other stakeholders to ensure the model fits into the DNA of each new partner school. After selecting our school partners, our team consults extensively with schools about space planning, school programming, and other operational details. We also implement a robust on-site support model that includes extensive training and instructional support for participating staff members and on-site support for technology and program logistics.

Redesign classrooms

Create individualized learning programs

Teach to One: Math Model Design Figure 2. New Classrooms designs personalized instructional models that reimagine every aspect of the classroom.

10


Provide teacher coaching

Produce daily schedules

Support operations

Provide daily assessment

Deliver academic resoures

Teach to One: Math School Implementation Figure 3. New Classrooms partners with schools to adapt the model to each school’s unique culture.

11


3,500 Students

Chicago, Illinois Spencer Technology Academy William P. Gray Elementary School Marquette School of Excellence

Washington, D.C. Charles Hart Middle School

Charlotte, North Carolina McClintock Middle School

Figure 4. Our School Partners for the 2013-14 School Year.

2013-14 School Partnerships During the 2013-14 school year, Teach to One: Math replaced the traditional mathematics instruction for 6,000 students in fifteen schools across NYC, Chicago, Charlotte, New Jersey, and Washington, DC.

12


6,000 Students

New York City I.S. 228 David A. Boody J.H.S. 88 Peter Rouget I.S. 381 I.S. 2 George L. Egbert I.S. 49 Berta A. Dreyfus I.S. 286 Renaissance Leadership Academy

Northern New Jersey University Heights Charter School Speedway School William C. McGinnis Middle School iPrep Academy School No. 8

New Classrooms is a nonprofit organization that strives to keep our program as affordable as possible for schools and districts. Costs to schools include two types of expenses: (1) fees to New Classrooms to implement and operate Teach to One: Math on a daily basis, and (2) school-based investments in technology and infrastructure to redesign space and upgrade

hardware to operate our model. The precise costs vary from school to school depending on school size and the number of years implementing the program.

13


Our First Model: Personalizing the Traditional Classroom to Accelerate Learning New Classrooms’ first model is Teach to One: Math, a personalized middle school math program that leverages a combination of live, online, and collaborative learning modalities to provide students with personalized learning each day.

1. Evan, Aimee, Tracy Gray and Joseph Olchefske. The Gateway to Student Success in Mathematics and Science: A Call for Middle School Reform – the Research and its Implications.” Washington DC: The American Institutes for Research, with the Microsoft Corporation, November 2006. p. 10.

14

Teach to One: Math is designed to help participating students complete middle school prepared for advanced high school mathematics courses such as Algebra and Geometry. Academic research makes it clear that Algebra and Geometry are the gateway for students’ success not only in higher-level mathematics but also in college and careers. A 2008 study from the Annenberg Institute at Brown University found that “success in Algebra opens doors to more advanced math, a college preparatory high school curriculum, higher college going rates, and higher college graduation rates.” Another study found that 80% of students who both passed Algebra in ninth grade and Geometry in 10th grade attended college, and

that passing these courses more than tripled the odds of attending college.1 For some students who enter middle school well behind their national peers, this approach has students focus on the foundational skills required to succeed in ninth grade Algebra. For more advanced students, the model enables them to master subjects such as Algebra by the end of eighth grade.

How the Model Works Step 1: Source The Lessons Our team of experienced educators carefully reviews thousands of educational lessons for a number of key qualities:   Does the lesson include high interest text and visuals appropriate for middle school students?   Does the lesson provide students with opportunities to practice?

  Does the lesson provide connections to previous units or other subjects within real-world contexts?   Does the lesson provide opportunities for students to demonstrate their communication skills (either written or oral)?   Can the lesson be completed within a 30-40 minute window (to align with how the model works)?  Do lessons include illustrations, photos, and other visuals to support English Language Learners? We aim to understand the characteristics of each lesson so that we can later find the ideal course for each student. To date, we have reviewed more than 80,000 lessons and selected 10,000 that match our criteria by publishers and digital content developers such as Curriculum Associates, LearnZillion, and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, and have built an advanced database that easily identifies a lesson on a particular topic, with particular characteristics.


Mr. Krupitsky, I.S. 381 The daily individualized scheduling ensures that math class never moves too fast or too slow. Best of all, everyone learns together in a shared environment with lessons that tap into multiple intelligences.

Step 2: Assess Students Throughout the school year, we continually assess each student’s content knowledge. Which students are above grade level? Which are struggling? Which specific skills have they already grasped? Which skills are gaps that we have to address? In the elementary and middle school grades, students gather up a set of important “building blocks” that form the foundation they will need to learn more advanced math skills—like Algebra and Geometry— in high school. In assessing students, it is our goal to figure out which of the building blocks each student already has, and which ones each student still needs.

SKILL: Measure Volume (cone, cylinders, spheres) Measure Volume of Rectangular Prisms Calculate a Rectangle’s Area

Using these assessments, we identify a set of skills we expect students to be able to encounter and learn throughout the school year. These skills form a student’s “Skill Library”.

Multiply Large Whole Numbers Multiply and Divide (within 100) Multiply (Up to 10 X 10) Divide

Divide (1-digit numbers)

Calculate Perimeter of Polygons Explore

Measure Nearest Inch or Fraction of an Inch

Describe Fractions

Calculate Circle’s Area

Subtract (within 100)

Circumference vs. Area

Multiply Multi-Digit Whole Numbers

Add and Subtract Large Whole Numbers

Figure 5. It is important to build foundational skills before advancing to the more advanced skills necessary to achieve Algebra readiness.

Round Using Decimals

Round Whole Numbers

Add (within 100)

Read/Write Decimals

Explain Patterns

Read/Write/ Compare Whole Numbers

15


Edgar, J.H.S. 88, 8th grade Teach to One makes you want to go to school, want to succeed in life, and it definitely gets you prepared for the future.

Step 3: Change the Classroom Next, we reimagine the physical classroom by leveraging the resources of multiple individual classes of students and teachers into a unified classroom experience. In a small, traditional classroom, there are a few students who are far behind their peers in a particular skill and a few who are ahead; others fall along the continuum. It is a distribution that might change from day to day and from skill

Figure 6. New Classrooms has adopted a new model for the physical space of a classroom that enables students to learn in multiple ways at the same time.

Traditional Classroom

Redesigned Classroom

16

to skill: Ben might be advanced with fractions but struggling with decimals and Madison might be great with decimals but confused about fractions. In using resources from multiple classrooms, there are more students who share common sets of skills and needs at any one point in time. In this combined model, the classroom space is more flexible. It becomes possible to tailor instruction to meet the individual needs of students.

Each day, students break off to work on specific skills with classmates who are on the same level for a particular skill. In doing so, they are then able to receive instruction through a number of different modalities, or teaching approaches.


HS Math

8th Grade

8

7

7th Grade

6th Grade

5th Grade

6

5

8

7

6

5

7

6

5

6

5

5

Figure 7. If a student enters sixth grade without learning multiple fifth grade skills (noted by the dotted blue outlines), it is important to go back and fill in the blanks so that there is a solid foundation for higher-level skills

build on each other, so to help students develop the prerequisite knowledge in order to tackle higher-level skills we start by identifying and filling their skill gaps. The model is designed to enable all students to both accelerate and deepen their learning in preparation for advanced high school mathematics.

Step 4: Match Each Student to the Optimal Lesson At the end of each class, students take a short computer-based assessment (called an “exit slip”) on the material they learned that day. We use this and other assessment information to determine if students have mastered the skills and can move ahead, or if they need to keep learning the same skills but in different ways. All student assessments are individualized to what students are learning, and information from these assessments is constantly being updated and analyzed to

help determine what skills students have mastered and what they should work on or review next. Combined, we developed an integrated solution that leverages our extensive database of lessons and student assessment results to create recommended custom schedules for each student each day. As we select new skills to focus on and lessons to suggest, our guiding philosophy is to help students master foundational skills and fill pre-grade level gaps while also introducing them to more challenging skills. Math skills

As a result, students with significant learning gaps with pre-grade skills may not be exposed to each and every grade-level skill that is included on the relevant end-ofyear state summative assessment. However, as these students master pre-grade basic skills, they will be able to accelerate their learning throughout the middle school years so that by the time they complete the eighth grade, they are more prepared for Algebra or other advanced high school mathematics courses than they otherwise would have been. At the same time, this approach also enables high performing students to accelerate beyond the skills that would otherwise be included on end-of-year state summative assessments.

17


Our Content Partners These are just some of the content partners that teachers and students have access to through Teach to One: Math.

18


an

company

19


Step 5: Pulling it All Together In practice, students and teachers experience Teach to One: Math through “Rounds”, two-to-threeweek learning periods. We pull skills from student’s unique Skill Library to create their customized “Playlist,” the sequence of new and interrelated skills students will tackle during a Round. Playlist skills are presented in the context of “Stories,” real-world mathematical problems or situations that provide a coherent instructional framework. During rounds, teachers have different ways of personalizing instruction for students. These might include “Pick Up Sessions,” which are 30–35 minute lessons focused on a single skill; “Task Sessions,” which are multi-day realworld applications of academic skills; or “Math Advisory Sessions,”

when students and teachers discuss learning and set and review goals. At the end of each day, students meet in their Math Advisory groups to take their short assessments, which help inform how the model then produces individualized instructional schedules for teachers the following day. Students, parents, and teachers can see daily schedules and progress during a round in an online portal. Teachers can access information about individual students and groups of students, as well as the lessons that are suggested by New Classrooms. Students and their parents can access information about their own performance, as well as access resources that help them to practice and get ahead.

Multiple Instructional Modalities We believe students should experience an expansive set of approaches to mathematics in order to build their knowledge of skills and develop a deep reserve of the practices and strategies that will enable them to explore complex ideas and problems. We do this by introducing mathematics concepts and skills in a variety of different ways, which we call modalities. Teachers play an important role in each of these approaches to learning.

Teacher-Delivered Modalities

Student Collaboration Modalities

Independent Modalities

Students may work with a teacher to explore particular concepts, skills, and approaches to learning. Teachers can use lessons suggested by Teach to One: Math or use their own lessons. Specific modalities include:

In these teacher-facilitated modalities, students may work together or work to teach one another strategies to solve math problems. Teachers use a variety of strategies to encourage discussion, debate, and collaborative problem solving. Specific modalities include:

While a student may work alone to learn new skills or practice and reinforce concepts, teachers support learning by asking questions and helping students to stay on task. Specific modalities include:

  Live Investigation  Tasks

  Small Group Collaboration   Peer to Peer

20

  Independent Practice   Virtual Instruction   Virtual Reinforcement


Rounds: How We Organize Learning In practice, students and teachers experience Teach to One: Math through “Rounds”, two-to-three-week learning periods.

Week 1 Times

M

T

W

Th

F

Task Session Sessions that take place over multiple days and allow students to use two or more related skills by applying them to real-world problems. Each student has the same task session teacher throughout a round.

0-35 min 40-75 min 80-90 min

Pick-Up Session Single lessons focused on teaching and/or practicing a single skill. Students can have a different teacher for each pick-up.

Week 2 Times

In-Class Learning

M

T

W

Th

F

0-35 min 40-75 min

80-90 min

Out-of-Classroom Learning Prove-Its Short assessments that a student can request when they feel able to pass them. Jolts L essons available to students outside of scheduled class time. They can be used to help a student practice and review their current skill or to help prepare them for a Prove-It. Watch/ Practice  ideos, worksheets, puzzles, and other educational materials V students can access to prepare for upcoming playlist skills. Homework  ackets of worksheets, problems, and projects customized to P students’ current playlists.

Math Advisory Consistent groups of students meet with the same teacher throughout the school year; these sessions are designed to provide a place for students to set goals and reflect on their math learning.

Assessments for Learning Exit Slip

A short computer-based assessment students take at the conclusion of each class day to determine whether they have mastered the skill they learned that day and can move on—or if they need more time to work on the skill. Students take their exit slip in their Math Advisory group. Task Demonstrations In the final Task session, students are required to demonstrate what they learned and the solution that they came up with through a presentation. Playlist Demonstration At the end of each round, students take a longer assessment that is customized to the skills they worked on during the round.

21


Teacher role in Teach to One: Math Ms. Dawn Salters, McClintock Middle School In a traditional classroom, I couldn’t teach Algebra to sixth graders. But in Teach to One, your kid could be learning Algebra in the sixth grade. And it’s not going to hold them back. It’s only for the benefit of the student. It can push them further and further and when they get to high school, they’ll be ready for everything that they need for high school math.

Teachers in Teach to One: Math operate as a team, working together and sharing responsibility for all students’ learning. A student’s Math Advisory teacher will meet consistently with the same group of students throughout the school year, will be responsible for grading homework, meeting with parents or guardians during conferences, and are held accountable for those students’ progress over time. However, students may be assigned to individual lessons supervised by any of the teachers in the Math Center, including their Math Advisory teacher. Because they work with all middle school math students, teachers work with students over multiple years. This enables teachers to develop an understanding of students’ growth and learning needs. In a Teach to One: Math classroom, each teacher has more time to devote to delivering high quality instruction. Our web-based teacher portal provides teachers with up-todate information about student performance, access to high quality instructional content and unique

22

daily schedules to help them plan and deliver personalized instruction for each and every student in the classroom. This leaves more time for teachers to develop strategies for delivering material in a teacherled format, support students during and outside of class through targeted interventions, and devote more energy to parent outreach. Each day, teachers can review recommendations from New Classrooms.


Mr. Aaron Kaswell, J.H.S. 88 School of One does an amazing job providing creative content for me to work with and relieving me of administrative functions. I can now spend time on how best to deliver the content for these students - who are coming from different backgrounds and learning styles - and figure out what types of questions I should ask them, how to push their thinking. That’s what a teacher’s role should be and School of One is designed in a way that makes this a reality.

Ms. Brook, Gray Elementary School Teach to One has been really beneficial for me as a new teacher, coming into teaching math for the first year. The collaborative nature, working with my fellow teachers who are much more experienced has been wonderful. We feed off of each other, we gain new ideas, we help each other.

Mr. Jaklin, Gray Elementary School Teach to One has allowed me to do some of the things that I wanted to do in my classroom. Which was to do more differentiation and give more opportunities to some of our special ed students and some of the lower achieving students, to be able to access different mathematical lessons or experiences.


Year 2 Results Summary of Year Two Results Teach to One: Math is focused on ensuring that substantially more students finish middle school ready for, or having completed, Algebra than would otherwise be the case. It is important to note that our organization does not manage the school itself. Rather, we partner with participating schools to replace their traditional, textbook-based math programs with Teach to One: Math. Because our model serves different types of schools with students who start at different academic levels, we caution against comparing the results of participating schools to one another. All schools are different, and their overall performance is a reflection of several factors beyond the adoption of Teach to One: Math. What matters to us is whether we can help to accelerate learning within a partner school so that far more students are prepared for advanced, high school mathematics than their previous academic trajectory would have otherwise suggested.

Finding 1: The rate at which students gained mathematics skills grew markedly from year one to year two, while there was also a higher level of consistency among Teach to One: Math network schools making gains significantly above the national average.

1. Ready, Douglas D. Student Mathematics Performance in the First Two Years of Teach to One: Math. December 4, 2014. http:// www.newclassrooms.org/ resources/Teach-to-One_ Report_2013-14.pdf

24

For the 2013-14 school year, we invested time and money on R&D to improve the Teach to One model and accelerate student learning. We developed more than 130 multi-day problem-based learning activities for students, and we successfully piloted a more dynamic, interactive assessment system. With these intensive R&D activities and a focus on improving services to increase student achievement, we saw that, on average, student growth in mathematics across all of our partner schools increased markedly in the 2013-14 school year compared to the 2012-13 school year.

Map Growth Versus National Average

1.5 1.2 1.0

National Average

2012-13 All TTO

2013-14 All TTO

To measure student growth, we use the Northwest Evaluation Association’s (NWEA’s) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) exam. In 2012-13, a report by The Center for Technology and School Change at Teacher’s College, Columbia University found that students in Teach to One made gains in their math learning that were 1.2 times the national average. In the 2013-14 school year, Professor Doug Ready of Teacher’s College, Columbia University found that, on average, Teach to One students made math gains at 1.5 times the national average. Student gains increased from year one to year two across all grade levels. Further, results across schools were more consistent. The number of partner schools that demonstrated growth results above the national average increased from year one to year two. During the 2012-13 school year, two of seven partner schools exhibited gains that were significantly above national norms. In the 2013-14 school year, gains in 11 of 15 schools were significantly above average.1


Finding 2: Teach to One: Math is accelerating student learning across all grade levels and demographic subgroups Students Made Significant Gains Across All Grade Levels

1.7 1.3

1.3 1.1

1.4 1.1

Finding 3: Teach to One is accelerating learning for ELLs and Special Education students English Language Learners (ELLs) and Special Education Students also showed stronger gains than the national average. ELLs gained, on average, 1.7 years using Teach to One: Math (this is 70% faster than the national average for all students), and Special Education Students gained, on average, 1.4 years, using the model (40% faster than the national average for all students).

1.2 ELL and Special Ed Students Accelerted their Learning*

5

6

7

8 1.7

2013-14 MAP Growth by Grade Level 2012-13

2013-14

National Average On average, students participating in Teach to One: Math made mathematics gains above the national average across all grade levels and demographic subgroups we serve. Fifth and sixth grade students made 1.3 times the national average growth, while students in seventh grade made 1.7 times the average growth, and eighth grade students made gains 1.4 times their grade level peers nationally.

Student Progress was Strong Regardless of Race*

1.7 1.4 1.2

1.4

1.4

1.4 1.4

0.9

White

Black

Asian

Hispanic

2013-14 MAP Growth by Race 2012-13

2013-14

National Average Student progress was also strong, regardless of racial subgroup. Black, Hispanic, and White students, on average, made gains 1.4 times the national average. Asian students showed the strongest gains compared with other demographic subgroups at 1.7 times the national average.

1.4 1.2

1.1

ELL

Special Ed

2013-14 MAP Growth by student designation 2012-13

2013-14

National Average

Looking Forward: Building on Early Successes While we are encouraged by these early results, we know we have much more to learn as we continue to evolve Teach to One: Math and work to further accelerate student learning. Innovation is a process. Figuring out how best to personalize learning for each student each day requires sustained R&D efforts, pioneering district and school partners, a combination of both successes and failures, and patience. We are committed to continuing to grow, learn, and improve. We are also hopeful that our early experiences with personalized learning will inspire other organizations and entrepreneurs to consider how they might engage in the sustained research and development efforts required to develop thoughtful personalized instructional models. Our current approach with Teach to One: Math is just one way of enabling personalized learning. The possibilities for other ways of designing personalized instructional models are endless.

25


Our Funding Partners The accomplishments outlined in this report could not have been possible without the generosity and strategic guidance of our supporters during the 2013-14 fiscal year and through December 2014. We thank you for joining us on this journey and look forward to your continued support.1

National Supporters The following institutions and individuals have made single or multi-year commitments of $1 million or more to support New Classrooms. Anonymous Bezos Family Foundation The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation Carnegie Corporation of New York Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation New Profit Inc. The Oak Foundation United States Department of Education, Office of Improvement and Innovation National supporters who have contributed or pledged between $100,000-999,999 include the below individuals and institutions. Michael & Susan Dell Foundation Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP* Kendall Family Foundation The Moriah Fund The Overdeck Family Foundation Arthur & Toni Rembe Rock

1. The donors and partners listed do not take responsibility for any statements or views expressed in this publication. * Indicates partial or full in‑kind support

26

In addition, we would like to thank all of our supporters who have sustained our work through contributions of below $100,000. These partners include: Anonymous Donors Izac & Abby Ben-Shmuel Neeraj Bewtra Miguel & Jacklyn Bezos Douglas Borchard & Barbara Talcott Rebecca Brian Kevin Cavolo Gregg & Marla Felton Benjamin Friedman Lillian Gatto Joseph Gleberman Dave Goldberg & Sheryl Sandberg Reed Hastings & Patty Quillin Charles Hoffman JPMorgan Chase Bank Katzman Ernst Family Foundation Josh & Tess Lewis Brad & Cori Meltzer Steven Mielnicki Monitor Deloitte* Morrison & Foerster LLP* William Ortner Robert & Lorraine Reeder Joel Rose and Doris Cooper Chris Rush Ann & Richard Sarnoff Family Foundation David N. Shine & Karen E. Lanci* Arnold & Susan Scharf Foundation Brian & Lisa Schachter-Brooks William & Janine Spigonardo Steven and Jamie Stein Jeff Wetzler & Jennifer Goldman Ryan Wright Louis & Susan Zinterhofer

Local Champions The following individuals and organizations have made possible our work with partner schools and districts as local champions. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools The Chicago Public Education Fund Chicago Public Schools CityBridge Foundation Crown Family Philanthropies D.C. Public Schools Elizabeth Public Schools Finnegan Family Foundation Fulton County Schools Investors Bank Foundation Jersey City Board of Education William R. Kenan, Jr. Charitable Trust New York City Department of Education Newark Public Schools NewSchools Venture Fund Perth Amboy Public Schools The Richard Salomon Family Foundation Robin Hood Foundation University Heights Charter School


Board of Directors Mike Bezos Co-Founder Bezos Family Foundation Doug Borchard Managing Director New Profit Inc. Joshua Lewis Founder and Managing Principal Salmon River Capital

Richard Sarnoff Managing Director and Head of Media & Communications Group KKR David N. Shine Partner Paul Hastings LLP Gideon Stein Founder and CEO LightSail Education

Jeff Wetzler Executive Vice President Teach for America Joel Rose and Chris Rush also serve on the Board of Directors.

Board of Advisors The New Classrooms Board of Advisors is a volunteer team of prominent education leaders who provide New Classrooms with strategic guidance on a range of academic and organizational issues such as student learning progressions, program research and evaluation design, school culture, teacher professional development, organizational design, fiscal management, governmental relations, and communications. Norman Atkins Co-Founder and President Relay Graduate School of Education John Katzman Chairman & Founder Noodle Education Former Chairman & Founder 2U Tom Payzant Former Professor of Practice Harvard Graduate School of Education Former Superintendent Boston Public Schools Ann Bradley Director American Federation of Teachers Innovation Fund Wendy Kopp CEO and Founder Teach For America CEO and Co-Founder Teach For All Doug Rohde Engineering Manager and Education Community Liaison Google Inc. Anthony Bryk President Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching

David Levin Co-Founder KIPP Jenny Shilling Stein Executive Director Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation Tom Carroll President National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future Arthur Levine President Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation Tom Vander Ark Founder Getting Smart Chris Dede Professor in Learning Technologies Harvard Graduate School of Education Ellen Moir Founder and CEO The New Teacher Center Gene Wilhoit Former Executive Director Council of Chief State School Officers

Mike Feinberg Co-Founder KIPP Wes Moore Author; CEO FrontCort Joe Wolf Board of Directors Clayton Christensen Institute Susan Fuhrman President Teachers College Columbia University

27


28


Appendix

29


Appendix

Appendix A: 2014-15 New Classrooms Regional Enrollment Region

# Students Grades Served

Charlotte, NC

Fall 2013

820

6-8

Chicago, IL

Fall 2012

489

5-8

Washington, DC

Fall 2012

373

6-8

Fulton County, GA

Fall 2014

779

6-8

New York, NY

Fall 2012

1729

6-8

Northern New Jersey

Fall 2013

1748

5-8

5938

Total

30

Launch Date


Appendix B: School Data Sheets School Data Sheets The test result data included in this report were drawn from the implementations of Teach to One: Math at 15 partner schools during the 2013–14 school year. At each participating school, students in Teach to One: Math took at least two assessments: one that measures growth (MAP) and one that measures student performance relative to grade level standards (annual state math exams). Measuring Academic Progress (MAP) Growth Assessments In order to measure student gains in mathematics, New  Classrooms administers NWEA’s MAP assessment to students in both the fall and spring, or in accordance with a partner district’s own MAP administration calendar. A pre and post test is necessary for determining student growth during the course of a school year. The MAP is aligned with the Common Core State Standards. Students who take the MAP receive a RIT score, which is assigned against a curriculum scale that uses the difficulty of individual questions to estimate student achievement. Individual student RIT scores have the same meaning independent of a student’s grade level, but these scores can be compared to national averages for a given grade, and gains can be compared to the national average gain made from fall to spring for students in a given grade, as determined and released by NWEA. NWEA has also determined that a RIT score of 235 indicates Algebra readiness, which is a benchmark New Classrooms uses internally to help us evaluate our effectiveness. Because these exams measure growth, only students who were present for both the pre and post administrations of the MAP exam are included in the MAP data sample for each school. Furthermore, to help ensure data integrity, only students who experienced at least 70% of their school year in theTeach to One: Math program are included in the MAP data sample. In the future, we will be establishing implementation fidelity metrics in order to determine school specific TTO growth periods for evaluative purposes.  State Exams Students participating in Teach to One: Math across the 15 partner schools also took State-mandated exams specific to their school’s home state:  Students in New York City took the New York State Math Exam. In 2012-13, New York State was one of the first states to adopt a new and more rigorous assessment based on the Common Core standards. As such, the test administered in the 2013-14 school year was only the second year of this more rigorous exam, which will give way in the 2014-15 school year to the online Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) math exam.  Students in Chicago took the Illinois Standard Achievement Test (ISAT) for the last time in the 2013-14 school year. The ISAT was not used in the 2013-14 school year to evaluate teachers, and instead the MAP assessment, which was administered district wide, was used as the high stakes test for teacher evaluation. In the 2014-15 school year, Chicago students will take the PARCC math exam.  Students in Washington, D.C. took the DC-Comprehensive Assessment System (DC-CAS); students in New Jersey took the New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJ-ASK); and students in North Carolina took the End of Year Assessment. For each of these districts, this is the last year they will administer a state test that is not explicitly Common Core aligned. Next year, each of these states will administer either the PARCC or Smarter Balanced assessment as they all transition to the Common Core. As with the MAP exam, only students who experienced at least 70% of their school year in Teach to One: Math were included in the results (i.e., If a student transferred in one month before the final MAP assessment, his or her score would not be counted). We caution against comparing state test results between states — since each state has different standards and is a different phase of transitioning to the Common Core. We hope that the following School Data Sheets will help further our goals of transparency and shared learning.

31


Appendix B: School Data Sheets

Spencer Technology Academy Chicago Public Schools: 2013-14 SY Principal: Shawn Jackson Initial Program Year: 2012-13 Grades Served: 6-8 Total # of Students in TTO: 198

Spencer Overall Math Growth: 2.1 X the National Average

Demographic Information*: White: 0% Black: 100% Hispanic: 0% Asian: 0% Multi-Racial/Other: 0% Free/Reduced Lunch: 100%

Measures of Academic Progress (MAP)

 Grade

Total Students**

Natl. Avg. Spring 2013 RIT Score

TTO Spring 2013 RIT***

TTO Winter 2014 RIT

TTO Growth

National Average Growth

Spencer Growth Compared to National Growth

6th Grade 6th Grade All Students

63

221

207.34

211.17

3.46

3.1

1.12 X

6th Below grade

53

221

204.02

208.72

4.7

3.1

1.52 X

6th On/above grade

10

N/A****

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

6th Special Education

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

6th ELL

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th Grade All Students

41

225.6

211.21

221.37

10.37

3.4

3.05 X

7th Below Grade

35

225.6

208.03

218.71

11.03

3.4

3.24 X

7th On/Above Grade

6

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th Special Education

2

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th ELL

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th Grade All Students

32

230.5

211.56

219.91

8.41

3.2

2.63 X

8th Below grade

31

230.5

210.76

219.58

8.94

3.2

2.79 X

8th On/Above grade

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th Special Education

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th ELL

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Total Students % Level 1 % Level 2 % Level 3 % Level 4

Total % Proficient

7th Grade

8th Grade

Illinois Standard Achievement Test (ISAT)***** All Students******

140

20.00%

57.10%

22.90%

0%

22.90%

6th

65

33.80%

44.60%

21.50%

0%

21.50%

7th

42

9.50%

61.90%

28.60%

0%

28.60%

8th

33

6.10%

75.80%

18.20%

0%

18.20%

* Demographic data is school level, and may not reflect the exact makeup of the students participating in TTO ** ThesampleofstudentsincludedinMAPanalysisarethosewhowerepresentforboththespring2013andthespring2014administrationsofthe MAP assessment, and who were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model *** Spencer had a TTO Growth Period from spring 2013 to winter 2014 for 2 reasons. First, Chicago Public Schools (CPS) did not administer a Fall MAP in 2013. MAP was CPS’s high stakes test in the 13-14 SY, and all CPS schools had to comply with their MAP administration calendar. Second, Spencer did not implement a complete version of TTO in the Spring semester, so Spring 2013 to Winter 2014 reflects the period of a full TTO implementation. **** N/A is used where a subgroup sample size is too small to present analysis ***** 2013-14 is the last year in which the ISAT was administered. Chicago Public Schools did not use it to evaluate schools in 13-14, instead using the MAP test. In the 2014-15 SY CPS students will take the PARCC Common Core assessment ****** The sample of students included in state test analysis are those who were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model

32


Marquette Elementary School Chicago Public Schools: 2013-14 SY Principal: La Tarsha Green Initial Program Year: 2013-14 Grades Served: 6-8 Total # of Students in TTO: 515

Marquette Overall Math Growth: 4.3 X the National Average

Demographic Information*: White: 1% Black: 42% Hispanic: 56% Asian: 0% Free/Reduced Lunch: 92%

Measures of Academic Progress (MAP)

Grade

Total Students **

Natl. Avg. Winter 2014 RIT Score

TTO Winter 2014 RIT***

TTO Spring 2014 RIT

TTO Growth

National Marquette Growth Average Compared to Growth National Growth

6th Grade 6th Grade All Students

24

222.8

221.42

231.46

10.04

2.8

3.59 X

6th Below grade

12

N/A****

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

6th On/above grade

12

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

6th Special Education

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

6th ELL

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th Grade All Students

22

228.6

217.05

228.45

11.41

2.2

5.19 X

7th Below Grade

19

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

X7th On/Above Grade

3

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th Special Education

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th ELL

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th Grade all Student

21

232.8

221.25

229.76

8.9

2

4.45 X

8th Below grade

20

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th On/Above grade

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th Special Education

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th ELL

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Total Students % Level 1 % Level 2 % Level 3 % Level 4

Total % Proficient

7th Grade

8th Grade

Illinois Standard Achievement Test (ISAT)***** All Students******

459

5.70%

28.80%

52.90%

12.60%

65.60%

5th

118

2.50%

29.70%

54.20%

13.60%

67.80%

6th

135

9.60%

33.30%

45.90%

11.10%

57.00%

7th

88

6.80%

27.30%

52.30%

13.60%

65.90%

8th

118

3.40%

23.70%

60.20%

12.70%

72.90%

* Demographic data is school level, and may not reflect the exact makeup of the students participating in TTO ** ThesampleofstudentsincludedinMAPanalysisarethosewhowerepresentforboththespring2013andthespring2014administrationsofthe MAP assessment, and who were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model *** Marquette had aTTO Growth Period from spring 2013 to winter 2014 for 2 reasons. First, Chicago Public Schools (CPS) did not administer a Fall MAP in 2013. MAP was CPS’s high stakes test in the 13-14 SY, and all CPS schools had to comply with their MAP administration calendar. Second, Marquette did not implement a complete version of TTO in the Fall semester, so Winter 2014 to Spring 2014 reflects the period of a full TTO implementation. **** N/A is used where a subgroup sample size is too small to present analysis ***** 2013-14 is the last year in which the ISAT was administered. Chicago Public Schools did not use it to evaluate schools in 13-14, instead using the MAP test. In the 2014-15 SY CPS students will take the PARCC Common Core assessment ****** The sample of students included in state test analysis are those who were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model

33


Gray Elementary School Chicago Public Schools: 2013-14 SY Principal: Sandra Carlson Initial Program Year: 2012-13 Grades Served: 5-8 Total # of Students in TTO: 535

Gray Overall Math Growth: .8X the National Average

Demographic Information*: White: 10% Black: 1% Hispanic: 85% Asian: 4% Free/Reduced Lunch: %

Measures of Academic Progress (MAP)

Grade

Total Students **

Natl. Avg. Spring 2013 RIT Score

TTO Spring 2013 RIT***

TTO Spring 2014 RIT

TTO Growth

National Average Growth

Gray Growth Compared to National Growth

5th Grade 5th Grade All Students

119

212.5

216.53

223.96

7.43

9.5

0.78 X

5th Below grade

46

212.5

203.41

209.46

6.04

9.5

.64 X

5th On/above grade

73

212.5

224.79

233.1

8.3

9.5

.87 X

5th Special Education

4

N/A****

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

5th ELL

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

6th Grade 136

221

223.45

226.16

2.71

5.9

0.46 X

6th Below grade

6th Grade All Students

52

221

207.6

213.06

5.46

5.9

0.93 X

6th On/above grade

84

221

233.26

234.27

1.01

5.9

0.17 X

6th Special Education

12

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th Grade All Students

88

225.6

227.51

233.81

6.3

5.6

1.12 X

7th Below Grade

39

225.6

213.85

221.59

7.74

5.6

1.38 X

X7th On/Above Grade

49

225.6

238.39

243.53

5.14

5.6

0.92 X

7th Special Education

16

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

9

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A 1.10 X

6th ELL 7th Grade

7th ELL 8th Grade 8th Grade all Student

119

230.5

233.46

239.18

5.71

5.2

8th Below grade

43

230.5

220.14

228.47

8.33

5.2

1.60 X

8th On/Above grade

76

230.5

241

245.24

4.24

5.2

0.82 X

8th Special Education

14

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th ELL

11

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Total Students % Level 1 % Level 2 % Level 3 % Level 4

Total % Proficient

Illinois Standard Achievement Test (ISAT)***** All Students******

459

5.70%

28.80%

52.90%

12.60%

65.60%

5th

118

2.50%

29.70%

54.20%

13.60%

67.80%

6th

135

9.60%

33.30%

45.90%

11.10%

57.00%

7th

88

6.80%

27.30%

52.30%

13.60%

65.90%

8th

118

3.40%

23.70%

60.20%

12.70%

72.90%

* Demographic data is school level, and may not reflect the exact makeup of the students participating in TTO ** ThesampleofstudentsincludedinMAPanalysisarethosewhowerepresentforboththespring2013andthespring2014administrationsoftheMAPassessment, and who were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model *** Gray had aTTO Growth Period from spring to spring because Chicago Public Schools (CPS) did not administer a Fall MAP in 2013. MAP was CPS’s high stakes test in the 13-14 SY, and all CPS schools had to comply with their MAP administration calendar. **** N/A is used where a subgroup sample size is too small to present analysis ***** 2013-14isthelastyearinwhichtheISATwasadministered.ChicagoPublicSchoolsdidnotuseittoevaluateschoolsin13-14,insteadusingtheMAPtest.Inthe201415 SY CPS students will take the PARCC Common Core assessment ****** The sample of students included in state test analysis are those who were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model

34


Hart Middle School District of Columbia Public Schools: 2013-14 SY Principal: Billy Kearney Initial Program Year: 2012-13 Grades Served: 6-8 Total # of Students in TTO: 503

Hart Overall Math Growth: 1.2X the National Average

Demographic Information*: White: 0% Black: 99% Hispanic: 1% Asian: 0% Free/Reduced Lunch: 99%

Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Total Students **

Natl. Avg. Fall 2013 RITÂ Score

TTO Fall 2013 RIT

TTO Spring 2014 RIT

6th Grade All Students

92

219.6

203.78

6th Below grade

88

219.6

202.69

6th On/above grade

4

N/A***

6th Special Education

0

N/A

6th ELL

0

7th Grade All Students 7th Below Grade

Grade

TTO Growth

National Average Growth

Hart Growth Compared to National Growth

206.78

3

6

0.5 X

205.47

2.77

6

0.46 X

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

99

225.6

206.89

215.69

8.8

4.9

1.8 X

6th Grade

7th Grade 92

225.6

205.03

214.1

9.07

4.9

1.85 X

7th On/Above Grade

7

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th Special Education

2

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th ELL

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th Grade all Students

98

230.2

213.41

220.13

6.72

4.3

1.56

8th Below grade

82

230.2

208.87

216.2

7.33

4.3

1.7

8th On/Above grade

16

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th Special Education

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th ELL

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th Grade

District of Columbia Comprehensive Assessment System (DC-CAS)**** Total Students % Level 1 % Level 2 % Level 3 % Level 4 All Students*****

Total % Proficient

309

15.90%

50.80%

31.40%

1.90%

33.30%

6th

96

26.00%

61.50%

10.40%

2.10%

12.50%

7th

105

14.30%

43.80%

41.00%

1.00%

42.00%

8th

108

8.30%

48.10%

40.70%

2.80%

43.50%

* Demographic data is school level, and may not reflect the exact makeup of the students participating in TTO ** The sample of students included in MAP analysis are those who were present for both the fall and spring administrations of the MAP assessment, and who were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model *** N/A is used where a subgroup sample size is too small to present analysis **** 2013-14 is the last year in which the DC-CAS was administered. In the 2014-15 SY D.C. students will take the PARCC Common Core assessment ***** The sample of students included in state test analysis are those who were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model

35


McClintock Middle School Charlotte-Mecklenberg Schools, NC: 2013-14 SY Principal: Paul Williams Initial Program Year: 2013-14 Grades Served: 6-8 Total # of Students in TTO: 803

McClintock Overall Math Growth: 1.7X the National Average

Demographic Information*: White: 18% Black: 56% Hispanic: 21% Asian: 5% Free/Reduced Lunch: 75%

Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Total Students **

Natl. Avg. Fall 2013 RIT Score

TTO Fall 2013 RIT

TTO Spring 2014 RIT

TTO Growth

6th Grade All Students

143

219.6

208.1

215.61

9.15

6

1.52 X

6th Below grade

Grade

National McClintockGrowth Average Compared to Growth National Growth

6th Grade 106

219.6

201.58

211.42

9.83

6

1.64 X

6th On/above grade

37

219.6

226.78

233.97

7.19

6

1.20 X

6th Special Education

20

N/A***

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th Grade All Students

145

225.6

217.54

225.94

10.83

4.9

2.21 X

7th Below Grade

100

225.6

209.26

221.05

11.79

4.9

2.40 X

7th On/Above Grade

45

225.6

235.96

244.64

8.69

4.9

1.77 X

7th Special Education

16

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

120

230.2

219.11

225.79

5.47

4.3

1.27 X

8th Below grade

92

230.2

213.8

219.35

5.54

4.3

1.29 X

8th On/Above grade

28

N/A

236.54

241.75

5.21

4.3

1.21 X

8th Special Education

13

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

% Level 1 % Level 2 % Level 3 % Level 4 % Level 5

Total % Proficient

6th ELL 7th Grade

7th ELL 8th Grade 8th Grade all Students

8th ELL

North Carolina End of Year Test**** Total Students All Students*****

622

53.70%

22.50%

4.30%

15.10%

4.30%

23.80%

6th

234

54.70%

20.90%

4.30%

14.50%

5.60%

24.40%

7th

221

49.30%

19.90%

5.90%

18.60%

6.30%

30.80%

8th

167

58.10%

28.10%

2.40%

11.40%

0.00%

13.80%

* Demographic data is school level, and may not reflect the exact makeup of the students participating in TTO ** The sample of students included in MAP analysis are those who were present for both the fall and spring administrations of the MAP assessment, and who were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model *** N/A is used where a subgroup sample size is too small to present analysis **** The sample of students included in state test analysis are those who were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model

36


University Heights Charter School Newark Public Schools, NJ: 2013-14 SY Principal: Misha Simmonds Initial Program Year: 2013-14 Grades Served: 5-7 Total # of Students in TTO: 150

UHCS Overall Math Growth: 3X the National Average

Demographic Information*: White: 0% Black: 91% Hispanic: 8% Asian: 0% Multi-Racial/Other: % Free/Reduced Lunch: 85%

Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Total Students **

Natl. Avg. Winter 2013 RIT Score***

TTO Winter 2013 RIT

TTO Spring 2014 RIT

TTO Growth

5th Grade All Students

38

217.8

206.34

213.58

7.24

3.3

2.19 X

5th Below grade

34

217.8

203.79

211.79

8

3.3

2.42 X

5th On/above grade

4

N/A****

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

5th Special Education

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

5th ELL

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

6th Grade All Students

39

222.8

213.13

222.79

9.67

2.8

3.45 X

6th Below Grade

31

222.8

209.52

221.16

11.65

2.8

4.2 X

6th On/Above Grade

8

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

6th Special Education

3

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

6th ELL

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th Grade all Students

39

228.2

222.26

229.87

7.62

2.2

3.46 X

7th Below grade

26

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th On/Above grade

13

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th Special Education

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th ELL

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Total Students % Level 1 % Level 2 % Level 3 % Level 4

Total % Proficient

Grade

National U.Heights Growth Average Compared to Growth National Growth

5th Grade

6th Grade

7th Grade

New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJ ASK)***** All Students******

43.90%

47.70%

8.30%

56.10%

5th

132 N/A******* 40

N/A

40.00%

52.50%

7.50%

60.00%

6th

47

N/A

40.40%

51.10%

8.50%

59.60%

7th

45

N/A

51.10%

40.00%

8.90%

48.90%

* Demographic data is school level, and may not reflect the exact makeup of the students participating in TTO ** ThesampleofstudentsincludedinMAPanalysisarethosewhowerepresentforboththewinter2014andspring2014administrationsoftheMAPassessment,and who were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model *** The students at University Heights startedTTO in November 2013.Their first MAP assessment was given in the winter of 2014, thus the growth period for these students is from winter to spring, and student growth numbers are compared to the winter to spring national norms. **** N/A is used where a subgroup sample size is too small to present analysis ***** 2013-14 is the last year in which the NJ-ASK was administered. In the 2014-15 SY New Jersey students will take the PARCC Common Core assessment ****** The sample of students included in state test analysis are those who were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model ******* The NJ-ASK does not have a Level 1 category. Categorization is confined to 3 levels: 2 are considered proficient, 1 is not.

37


McGinnis Middle School Perth Amboy Public Schools, NJ: 2013-14 SY Principal: Dr. Myrna Garcia Initial Program Year: 2013-14 Grades Served: 6-8 Total # of Students in TTO: 1000 Â McGinnis Overall Math Growth: 1.6 X the National Average

Demographic Information*: White: 2% Black: 6% Hispanic: 92% Asian: 0% Free/Reduced Lunch: 66%

Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Total Students **

Natl. Avg. Fall 2013 RIT Score

TTO Fall 2013 RIT

TTO Spring 2014 RIT

TTO Growth

National Average Growth

McGinnis Growth Compared to National Growth

6th Grade All Students

283

219.6

210.94

219.66

8.72

6

1.45 X

6th Below grade

Grade 6th Grade

218

219.6

206.25

215.18

8.93

6

1.49 X

6th On/above grade

65

219.6

226.68

234.69

8.02

6

1.34 X

6th Special Education

20

N/A***

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

6th ELL

35

219.6

197.14

206.31

9.17

6

1.53 X

7th Grade All Students

302

225.6

215.87

224.58

8.71

4.9

1.78 X

7th Below Grade

221

225.6

210.14

219.63

9.49

4.9

1.94 X

7th On/Above Grade

81

225.6

231.52

238.09

6.57

4.9

1.34 X

7th Special Education

28

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th ELL

33

225.6

198.94

215.36

16.42

4.9

3.35 X

8th Grade all Students

302

230.2

221.32

228.04

6.72

4.3

1.56 X

8th Below grade

7th Grade

8th Grade 207

230.2

213.66

220.78

7.13

4.3

1.66 X

8th On/Above grade

95

230.2

238.03

243.85

5.82

4.3

1.35 X

8th Special Education

16

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th ELL

43

230.2

201.95

211.37

9.42

4.3

2.19 X

Total Students % Level 1 % Level 2 % Level 3 % Level 4

Total % Proficient

New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJ ASK)***** All Students***** 6th

1051

N/A******

60.60%

32.40%

6.90%

39.30%

331

N/A

50.50%

42.30%

7.30%

49.60%

7th

364

N/A

66.50%

30.20%

3.30%

33.50%

8th

356

N/A

64.00%

25.50%

10.50%

36.00%

* Demographic data is school level, and may not reflect the exact makeup of the students participating in TTO ** ThesampleofstudentsincludedinMAPanalysisarethosewhowerepresentforboththefall2013andspring2014administrationsoftheMAPassessment,andwho were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model *** N/A is used where a subgroup sample size is too small to present analysis **** 2013-14 is the last year in which the NJ-ASK was administered. In the 2014-15 SY New Jersey students will take the PARCC Common Core assessment ***** The state test analysis is school level data.We had trouble obtaining student level data from the school, and these numbers reflect all McGinnis students, not just those who were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model. ****** The NJ-ASK does not have a Level 1 category. Categorization is confined to 3 levels: 2 are considered proficient, 1 is not.

38


iPrep Academy, School No. 8 Elizabeth Public Schools, NJ: 2013-14 SY Principal: Larry Roodenberg Initial Program Year: 2013-14 Grades Served: 5-8 Total # of Students in TTO: 184 Â iPrep8 Overall Math Growth: 1.8X the National Average

Demographic Information*: White: 7% Black: 26% Hispanic: 66% Asian: 1% Free/Reduced Lunch: 89%

Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Total Students **

Natl. Avg. Fall 2013 RIT Score

TTO Fall 2013 RIT

TTO Spring 2014 RIT

TTO Growth

National Average Growth

iPrep8 Growth Compared to National Growth

5th Grade All Students

41

212.9

207.2

218.02

10.83

9.5

1.34 X

5th Below grade

23

N/A***

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

5th On/above grade

17

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

5th Special Education

3

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

5th ELL

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

6th Grade All Students

43

219.6

214.44

226.47

12.02

5.9

2.0 X

6th Below grade

24

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

6th On/above grade

16

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

6th Special Education

2

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

6th ELL

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th Grade All Students

39

225.6

224

235.13

11.13

5.6

2.27 X

7th Below Grade

16

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th On/Above Grade

20

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th Special Education

4

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th ELL

3

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th Grade All Students

37

230.2

228.62

235.38

6.76

5.2

1.57 X

8th Below grade

19

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th On/Above grade

17

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th Special Education

3

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 Grade

8th ELL

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Total Students % Level 1 % Level 2 % Level 3 % Level 4

Total % Proficient

Grade 5th Grade

6th Grade

7th Grade

8th Grade

New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJ ASK)***** All Students*****

166

N/A******

32.30%

48.10%

19.60%

67.70%

5th

41

N/A

41.50%

41.50%

17.10%

58.50%

6th

43

N/A

17.50%

60.00%

22.50%

82.50%

7th

42

N/A

42.50%

45.00%

12.50%

57.50%

8th

38

N/A

27.00%

45.90%

27.00%

73.00%

* Demographic data is school level, and may not reflect the exact makeup of the students participating in TTO ** ThesampleofstudentsincludedinMAPanalysisarethosewhowerepresentforboththefall2013andspring2014administrationsoftheMAPassessment,andwho were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model *** N/A is used where a subgroup sample size is too small to present analysis **** 2013-14 is the last year in which the NJ-ASK was administered. In the 2014-15 SY New Jersey students will take the PARCC Common Core assessment ***** The sample of students included in state test analysis are those who were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model ****** The NJ-ASK does not have a Level 1 category. Categorization is confined to 3 levels: 2 are considered proficient, 1 is not.

39


Speedway School Newark Public Schools, NJ: 2013-14 SY Principal: Atiba Buchman Initial Program Year: 2013-14 Grades Served: 5-8 Total # of Students in TTO: 150 Â Speedway Overall Math Growth: 2.4 X the National Average

Demographic Information*: White: 0% Black: 96% Hispanic: 4% Asian: 0% Free/Reduced Lunch: 74%

Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Total Students**

Natl. Avg. Fall 2013 RIT Score

TTO Fall 2013 RIT

TTO Spring 2014 RIT

TTO Growth

5th Grade All Students

23

212.9

195.87

209.91

14.04

9.5

1.73 X

5th Below grade

 Grade

National Speedway Growth Average Compared to Growth National Growth

5th Grade 20

N/A***

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

5th On/above grade

3

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

5th Special Education

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

5th ELL

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

6th Grade All Students

23

219.6

201.04

219.48

18.43

5.9

3.07 X

6th Below grade

23

219.6

201.04

219.48

18.43

5.9

3.07 X

6th On/above grade

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

6th Special Education

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

6th ELL

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th Grade All Students

28

225.6

202.18

214.79

12.61

5.6

2.57 X

7th Below Grade

6th Grade

7th Grade 28

225.6

202.18

214.79

12.61

5.6

2.57 X

7th On/Above Grade

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th Special Education

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th ELL

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th Grade All Students

23

230.2

213.74

224

10.26

5.2

2.39 X

8th Below grade

20

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th On/Above grade

3

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th Special Education

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th ELL

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Total Students % Level 1 % Level 2 % Level 3 % Level 4

Total % Proficient

8th Grade

New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJ ASK)***** All Students*****

119

N/A******

67.20%

28.60%

4.20%

32.80%

5th

30

N/A

73.30%

16.70%

10.00%

26.70%

6th

25

N/A

52.00%

40.00%

8.00%

48.00%

7th

33

N/A

81.80%

18.20%

0.00%

18.20%

8th

31

N/A

58.10%

41.90%

0.00%

41.90%

* Demographic data is school level, and may not reflect the exact makeup of the students participating in TTO ** ThesampleofstudentsincludedinMAPanalysisarethosewhowerepresentforboththefall2013andspring2014administrationsoftheMAPassessment,andwho were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model *** N/A is used where a subgroup sample size is too small to present analysis **** 2013-14 is the last year in which the NJ-ASK was administered. In the 2014-15 SY New Jersey students will take the PARCC Common Core assessment ***** The sample of students included in state test analysis are those who were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model ****** The NJ-ASK does not have a Level 1 category. Categorization is confined to 3 levels: 2 are considered proficient, 1 is not.

40


I.S. 228 New York City Department of Education: 2013-14 SY Principal: Dominick D’Angelo Initial Program Year: 2010-11 Grades Served: 6-8 Total # of Students in TTO: 880

I.S. 228 Overall Math Growth: 1.5X the National Average

Demographic Information*: White: 29% Black: 10% Hispanic: 28% Asian: 33% Free/Reduced Lunch: 72%

Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Total Students **

Natl. Avg. Fall 2013 RIT Score

TTO Fall 2013 RIT

TTO Spring 2014 RIT

TTO Growth

National Average Growth

I.S. 228 Growth Compared to National Growth

6th Grade All Students

259

219.6

218.2

227.64

9.44

6

1.57 X

6th Below grade

136

219.6

208.52

218.49

9.96

6

1.66 X

6th On/above grade

123

219.6

228.89

237.76

8.87

6

1.48 X

6th Special Education

22

N/A***

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

6th ELL

21

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

205

225.6

228.68

235.75

7.07

4.9

1.44 X

77

225.6

214.22

221.16

6.94

4.9

1.42 X

7th On/Above Grade

128

225.6

237.38

244.53

7.16

4.9

1.46 X

7th Special Education

25

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th ELL

83

225.6

228.99

236.45

7.46

4.9

1.52 X

107

230.2

225.06

231.35

6.29

4.3

1.46 X

8th Below grade

71

230.2

217.87

224.68

6.8

4.3

1.58 X

8th On/Above grade

36

230.2

239.22

244.5

5.28

4.3

1.23 X

8th Special Education

24

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th ELL

69

230.2

226.81

233.25

6.43

4.3

1.50 X

Total Students % Level 1 % Level 2 % Level 3 % Level 4

Total % Proficient

 Grade 6th Grade

7th Grade 7th Grade All Students 7th Below Grade

8th Grade 8th Grade all Students

New York State Math Exam All Students****

701

15.80%

40.90%

28.10%

15.10%

43.20%

6th

318

13.20%

39.30%

25.20%

22.30%

47.50%

7th

228

16.70%

38.20%

31.60%

13.60%

45.20%

8th

155

20.00%

48.40%

29.00%

2.60%

31.60%

* Demographic data is school level, and may not reflect the exact makeup of the students participating in TTO ** The sample of students included in MAP analysis are those who were present for both the fall and spring administrations of the MAP assessment, and who were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model *** N/A is used where a subgroup sample size is too small to present analysis **** The sample of students included in state test analysis are those who were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model

41


I.S. 49 New York City Department of Education: 2013-14 SY Principal: Linda Hill Initial Program Year: 2012-13 Grades Served: 6-8 Total # of Students in TTO: 250

I.S. 49 Overall Math Growth: 1.5X the National Average

Demographic Information*: White: 11% Black: 41% Hispanic: 35% Asian: 13% Free/Reduced Lunch: 79%

Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Total Students **

Natl. Avg. Fall 2013 RIT Score

TTO Fall 2013 RIT

TTO Spring 2014 RIT

TTO Growth

National Average Growth

I.S. 49 Growth Compared to National Growth

6th Grade All Students

70

219.6

211.93

218.26

6.33

6

1.05 X

6th Below grade

47

219.6

203.13

209.72

6.6

6

1.10 X

6th On/above grade

23

219.6

229.91

235.7

5.78

6

0.96 X

6th Special Education

0

N/A***

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

6th ELL

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th Grade All Students

62

225.6

218.66

227.18

8.52

4.9

1.74 X

7th Below Grade

38

225.6

206.82

215.42

8.61

4.9

1.76 X

7th On/Above Grade

24

225.6

237.42

245.79

8.38

4.9

1.71 X

7th Special Education

6

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th ELL

0

225.6

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th Grade all Students

47

230.2

210.21

218.34

8.13

4.3

1.89 X

8th Below grade

 Grade 6th Grade

7th Grade

8th Grade 46

230.2

209.7

217.98

8.28

4.3

1.93 X

8th On/Above grade

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th Special Education

8

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th ELL

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Total Students % Level 1 % Level 2 % Level 3 % Level 4

Total % Proficient

New York State Math Exam All Students****

201

55.70%

26.40%

10.00%

8.00%

17.90%

6th

75

46.70%

33.30%

10.70%

9.30%

20.00%

7th

73

52.10%

20.50%

15.10%

12.30%

27.00%

8th

53

73.60%

24.50%

1.90%

0.00%

1.90%

* Demographic data is school level, and may not reflect the exact makeup of the students participating in TTO ** The sample of students included in MAP analysis are those who were present for both the fall and spring administrations of the MAP assessment, and who were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model *** N/A is used where a subgroup sample size is too small to present analysis **** The sample of students included in state test analysis are those who were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model

42


J.H.S. 88 New York City Department of Education: 2013-14 SY Principal: Ailene Altman Mitchell Initial Program Year: 2012-13 Grades Served: 6-8 Total # of Students in TTO: 324

J.H.S. 88 Overall Math Growth: 1.6X the National Average

Demographic Information*: White: 10% Black: 14% Hispanic: 60% Asian: 15% Free/Reduced Lunch: 75%

Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Total Students **

Natl. Avg. Fall 2013 RIT Score

TTO Fall 2013 RIT

TTO Spring 2014 RIT

TTO Growth

National Average Growth

J.H.S. 88 Growth Compared to National Growth

101

219.6

211.84

221.12

9.28

6

1.55 X

6th Below grade

68

219.6

205.75

217.74

11.99

6

2.0 X

6th On/above grade

33

219.6

224.39

228.09

3.7

6

0.6 X

6th Special Education

23

N/A***

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th Grade All Students

79

225.6

221.05

229.47

8.42

4.9

1.72 X

7th Below Grade

50

225.6

212.68

220.88

8.2

4.9

1.7 X

7th On/Above Grade

29

225.6

235.48

244.28

8.79

4.9

1.8 X

7th Special Education

13

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th ELL

22

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th Grade All Students

63

230.2

217.94

225.19

7.25

4.3

1.69 X

8th Below grade

 Grade 6th Grade 6th Grade All Students

6th ELL 7th Grade

8th Grade 54

230.2

215.07

222.74

8.49

4.3

2.0 X

8th On/Above grade

9

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th Special Education

18

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th ELL

29

N/A

218.38

224.34

5.97

N/A

1.4 X

Total Students % Level 1 % Level 2 % Level 3 % Level 4

Total % Proficient

New York State Math Exam All Students****

267

16.50%

52.40%

21.30%

9.70%

31.00%

6th

108

13.90%

54.60%

19.40%

12.00%

31.40%

7th

98

22.40%

36.70%

27.60%

13.30%

40.90%

8th

61

11.50%

73.80%

14.80%

0%

14.80%

* Demographic data is school level, and may not reflect the exact makeup of the students participating in TTO ** The sample of students included in MAP analysis are those who were present for both the fall and spring administrations of the MAP assessment, and who were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model *** N/A is used where a subgroup sample size is too small to present analysis **** The sample of students included in state test analysis are those who were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model

43


I.S. 381 New York City Department of Education: 2013-14 SY Principal: Mary Harrington Initial Program Year: 2012-13 Grades Served: 6-8 Total # of Students in TTO: 383

I.S. 381 Overall Math Growth: 1.2X the National Average

Demographic Information*: White: 9% Black: 62% Hispanic: 20% Asian: 9% Free/Reduced Lunch: 54%

Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Total Students **

Natl. Avg. Fall 2013 RIT Score

TTO Fall 2013 RIT

TTO Spring 2014 RIT

TTO Growth

National Average Growth

I.S. 381 Growth Compared to National Growth

102

219.6

210.21

215.51

5.3

6

0.88 X

6th Below grade

78

219.6

205.81

211.65

5.85

6

0.98 X

6th On/above grade

24

219.6

224.5

228.04

3.54

6

.59 X

6th Special Education

15

N/A***

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

5

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th Grade All Students

90

225.6

221.7

227.48

5.78

4.9

1.18 X

7th Below Grade

64

225.6

216.31

222.75

6.44

4.9

1.31 X

7th On/Above Grade

26

225.6

234.96

239.12

4.15

4.9

0.85 X

7th Special Education

3

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th ELL

2

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th Grade all Students

64

230.2

216.09

223.78

7.69

4.3

1.79 X

8th Below grade

 Grade 6th Grade 6th Grade All Students

6th ELL 7th Grade

8th Grade 56

230.2

213.63

221.48

7.86

4.3

1.83 X

8th On/Above grade

8

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th Special Education

11

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Total Students % Level 1 % Level 2 % Level 3 % Level 4

Total % Proficient

8th ELL

New York State Math Exam All Students****

289

32.20%

49.10%

14.20%

4.50%

18.70%

6th

114

28.90%

47.40%

16.70%

7.00%

23.70%

7th

99

35.40%

43.40%

16.20%

5.10%

21.30%

8th

76

32.90%

59.20%

7.90%

0.00%

7.90%

* Demographic data is school level, and may not reflect the exact makeup of the students participating in TTO ** The sample of students included in MAP analysis are those who were present for both the fall and spring administrations of the MAP assessment, and who were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model *** N/A is used where a subgroup sample size is too small to present analysis **** The sample of students included in state test analysis are those who were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model

44


I.S. 2 New York City Department of Education: 2013-14 SY Principal: Adrienne Stallone Initial Program Year: 2013-14* Grades Served: 6-8 Total # of Students in TTO: 270

I.S. 2 Overall Math Growth: 0.7X the National Average

Demographic Information*: White: 56% Black: 7% Hispanic: 28% Asian: 9% Free/Reduced Lunch: 53%

Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Total Students ***

Natl. Avg. Fall 2013 RIT Score

TTO Fall 2013 RIT

TTO Spring 2014 RIT

TTO Growth

National Average Growth

I.S. 2 Growth Compared to National Growth

6th Grade All Students

59

219.6

214.93

217.08

2.15

6

0.36 X

6th Below grade

42

219.6

209.26

213.26

4

6

0.67 X

6th On/above grade

17

N/A****

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

6th Special Education

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

6th ELL

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th Grade All Students

74

225.6

215.3

218.15

2.85

4.9

0.58 X

7th Below Grade

64

225.6

212.72

215.36

2.64

4.9

0.54 X

7th On/Above Grade

10

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th Special Education

7

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

13

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

66

230.2

222.44

228.18

5.74

4.3

1.34 X

 Grade 6th Grade

7th Grade

7th ELL 8th Grade 8th Grade All Students 8th Below grade

45

230.2

214.42

222.2

7.78

4.3

1.81 X

8th On/Above grade

21

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th Special Education

11

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th ELL

24

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Total Students % Level 1 % Level 2 % Level 3 % Level 4

Total % Proficient

New York State Math Exam All Students*****

241

40.20%

46.10%

9.50%

4.10%

13.60%

6th

74

35.10%

50.00%

6.80%

8.10%

14.90%

7th

87

56.30%

35.60%

6.90%

1.10%

8.00%

8th

80

27.50%

53.80%

15.00%

3.80%

18.80%

* While I.S. 2 was part of a cohort of NYC schools that officially joined TTO in the 2012-13 SY, due to Hurricane Sandy and the problems that prevented a full implementationofTTOthatyear,the2013-14SYisconsideredthefirstfullyearofimplementationofourmodel.I.S.2alsofacedstaffingchallengesin2013-14that made its implementation less than optimal, specifically a lack of Teacher Residents. ** Demographic data is school level, and may not reflect the exact makeup of the students participating in TTO *** The sample of students included in MAP analysis are those who were present for both the fall and spring administrations of the MAP assessment, and who were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model **** N/A is used where a subgroup sample size is too small to present analysis ***** The sample of students included in state test analysis are those who were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model

45


I.S. 286 New York City Department of Education: 2013-14 SY Principal: Qadir Ben Dixon Initial Program Year: 2013-14 Grades Served: 6-8 Total # of Students in TTO: 180

I.S. 286 Overall Math Growth: 0.5X the National Average

Demographic Information*: White: 1% Black: 61% Hispanic: 37% Asian: 1% Free/Reduced Lunch: 83%

Measures of Academic Progress (MAP)

 Grade

Total Students **

Natl. Avg. Winter 2014 RIT Score***

TTO Winter 2014 RIT

TTO Spring 2014 RIT

TTO Growth

National Average Growth

I.S. 286 Growth Compared to National Growth

6th Grade 6th Grade All Students

23

222.8

209.04

211.35

2.3

2.8

0.82 X

6th Below grade

18

N/A****

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

6th On/above grade

5

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

6th Special Education

4

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

6th ELL

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th Grade All Students

32

228.2

213.88

215.88

2

2.2

0.91 X

7th Below Grade

29

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th On/Above Grade

3

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th Special Education

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7th ELL

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th Grade all Students

32

232.8

215.94

215.06

-0.88

2

-0.44 X

8th Below grade

29

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th On/Above grade

3

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th Special Education

4

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8th ELL

4

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Total Students % Level 1 % Level 2 % Level 3 % Level 4

Total % Proficient

7th Grade

8th Grade

New York State Math Exam All Students*****

142

54.90%

31.00%

14.10%

0%

14.10%

6th

36

52.80%

38.90%

8.30%

0%

8.30%

7th

60

70.00%

21.70%

8.30%

0%

8.30%

8th

46

37.00%

37.00%

26.10%

0%

26.10%

* Demographic data is school level, and may not reflect the exact makeup of the students participating in TTO ** The sample of students included in MAP analysis are those who were present for both the fall and spring administrations of the MAP assessment, and who were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model *** ThestudentsatI.S.286startedTTOinNovember2013.TheirfirstMAPassessmentwasgiveninthewinterof2014,thusthegrowthperiodforthesestudentsisfrom winter to spring, and student growth numbers are compared to the winter to spring national norms. **** N/A is used where a subgroup sample size is too small to present analysis ***** The sample of students included in state test analysis are those who were present for at least 70% of the school year in the TTO model

46


Appendix C: Audited FY14 Financials Ending June 30, 2014 Fiscal Year 2014 Financial Snapshot (Unaudited)

REVENUE Contributions Individuals

$145,651

1.6%

Family Foundations

$2,529,057

17.3%

Institutional

$5,573,105

51.8%

$2,187,762

24.8%

$281,574

3.2%

Other Revenue

$119,312

1.4%

Total Revenue

$9,836,461

100%

$7,180,851

75.6%

$1,944,433

20.5%

$376,666

4%

$9,501,950

100%

Program Service Fees Pro Bono Services

EXPENSES Program Services Management and General Fundraising Total Expenses Change in Net Assets

($334,511)

NET ASSETS Beginning of Year

$4,453,926

End of Year

$4,788,437

47


New Classrooms Innovation Partners 1250 Broadway, 30th Floor New York, NY 10001 Phone: 212-920-6130 Fax: 718-313-0135 www.newclassrooms.org

New Classrooms 2014 Annual Report  
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you