Report: Chatham High Improves Proficiency in HSPA Tests
State DOE report cards were released Thursday.
The School District of the Chathams has continued its reputation for excellence, according to the 2010-11 state Department of Education report cards released Thursday.
The goal of the School Report Cards is to allow the public to see how the state judges individual elementary, middle and high schools' performance in the 2010-11 school year. The information can be used to find deficiencies and plot courses for improvement.
The reports measure standardized test scores for each school in a district and also provides figures on average class size, expulsion rate, length of instruction time, attendance rate and several other factors.
It also provides financial data for districts. Together, the Chathams fund 90 percent of the budget through taxes, while the state average is 52 percent. Per pupil spending costs in the Chathams are $15,428, less than neighbor Madison, whose cost per pupil is $17,130, and less than the state average of $17,469.
Total cot per pupil in the district for the 2010-11 year was $15,428, compared to a state average, rising from $14,825 in the 2009-10 year, according to last year's school report card data.
The Chathams only receives 9 percent in state aid while the state average is 42 percent.
The Chatham High School Class of 2011 had a 96.83 percent graduation rate. According to the High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) tests, Chatham High raised its percentage rates of "Advanced Proficiency" in both literature and mathematics over the 2009-10 scores.
The percentage of students who entered and left during the school year fell to almost zero, from 2.5 percent in 2009-10 to 0.7 percent in 2010-11.
Class sizes in Chatham High School remain below the state average at every grade level. The number of students per faculty member is 12.3, compared to a state average of 11.
School suspensions totaled 1 percent at Chatham High and within the district, compared to a 13 percent suspension rate throughout the state.
The report card also shows juniors and seniors from the 2010-11 school year had a 100 percent participation rate in Advanced Placement (AP) classes, though this is an error, according to Interim Superintendent Dennis Fyffe. The actual percentage of juniors and seniors who took AP classes is 67 percent.
You can find breakdowns of the individual elementary schools and grade levels on the DOE website.
| New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK4) LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY | Year | Number Tested | Proficiency Percentages | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Partial | Proficient | Advanced | ||||
| School | 2010-11 2009-10 |
308 299 |
18.5% 19.1% |
70.8% 68.9% |
10.7% 12% |
|
| District | 2010-11 2009-10 |
308 299 |
18.5% 19.1% |
70.8% 68.9% |
10.7% 12% |
|
| DFG | 2010-11 2009-10 |
4341 4366 |
15.1% 15.9% |
67.7% 62.9% |
17.2% 21.2% |
|
| State | 2010-11 2009-10 |
100447 101654 |
36.7% 40.2% |
56% 50.4% |
7.3% 9.3% |
|
| New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK4) MATHEMATICS | Year | Number Tested | Proficiency Percentages | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Partial | Proficient | Advanced | ||||
| School | 2010-11 2009-10 |
309 299 |
7.4% 9% |
61.2% 48.8% |
31.4% 42.1% |
|
| District | 2010-11 2009-10 |
309 299 |
7.4% 9% |
61.2% 48.8% |
31.4% 42.1% |
|
| DFG | 2010-11 2009-10 |
4352 4377 |
6% 6.8% |
38.6% 34.6% |
55.3% 58.6% |
|
| State | 2010-11 2009-10 |
100776 102032 |
20% 22.8% |
47.5% 42.3% |
32.5% 34.9% |
|
| New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK4) SCIENCE | Year | Number Tested | Proficiency Percentages | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Partial | Proficient | Advanced | ||||
| School | 2010-11 2009-10 |
308 298 |
1.9% 0% |
31.2% 39.6% |
66.9% 60.4% |
|
| District | 2010-11 2009-10 |
308 298 |
1.9% 0% |
31.2% 39.6% |
66.9% 60.4% |
|
| DFG | 2010-11 2009-10 |
4350 4376 |
2.3% 1% |
27.6% 34.3% |
70.1% 64.7% |
|
| State | 2010-11 2009-10 |
100720 102004 |
9.6% 6.5% |
42.3% 49.2% |
48.2% 44.3% |
|
| New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK5) LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY | Year | Number Tested | Proficiency Percentages | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Partial | Proficient | Advanced | ||||
| School | 2010-11 2009-10 |
289 335 |
11.4% 6.3% |
71.6% 68.4% |
17% 25.4% |
|
| District | 2010-11 2009-10 |
289 335 |
11.4% 6.3% |
71.6% 68.4% |
17% 25.4% |
|
| DFG | 2010-11 2009-10 |
4413 4504 |
13.3% 12.9% |
69.6% 62.8% |
17.2% 24.3% |
|
| State | 2010-11 2009-10 |
101075 102415 |
38.6% 36.7% |
55.2% 54.5% |
6.2% 8.8% |
|
| New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK5) MATHEMATICS | Year | Number Tested | Proficiency Percentages | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Partial | Proficient | Advanced | ||||
| School | 2010-11 2009-10 |
289 336 |
3.8% 4.2% |
31.1% 38.4% |
65.1% 57.4% |
|
| District | 2010-11 2009-10 |
289 336 |
3.8% 4.2% |
31.1% 38.4% |
65.1% 57.4% |
|
| DFG | 2010-11 2009-10 |
4423 4521 |
4.1% 5.4% |
27.7% 30.1% |
68.2% 64.6% |
|
| State | 2010-11 2009-10 |
101377 102732 |
19% 21% |
41.2% 42.1% |
39.8% 36.9% |
|
| New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK6) LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY | Year | Number Tested | Proficiency Percentages | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Partial | Proficient | Advanced | ||||
| School | 2010-11 2009-10 |
341 313 |
7.9% 8.3% |
77.1% 66.5% |
15% 25.2% |
|
| District | 2010-11 2009-10 |
341 314 |
7.9% 8.3% |
77.1% 66.6% |
15% 25.2% |
|
| DFG | 2010-11 2009-10 |
4496 4442 |
10.8% 10.9% |
70% 67.3% |
19.2% 21.8% |
|
| State | 2010-11 2009-10 |
101922 102281 |
32.8% 34.5% |
59.9% 57.9% |
7.4% 7.6% |
|
| New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK6) MATHEMATICS | Year | Number Tested | Proficiency Percentages | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Partial | Proficient | Advanced | ||||
| School | 2010-11 2009-10 |
342 314 |
4.7% 7.6% |
41.8% 39.8% |
53.5% 52.5% |
|
| District | 2010-11 2009-10 |
342 315 |
4.7% 7.6% |
41.8% 39.7% |
53.5% 52.7% |
|
| DFG | 2010-11 2009-10 |
4512 4449 |
5.7% 8.6% |
40% 42.8% |
54.3% 48.7% |
|
| State | 2010-11 2009-10 |
102218 102558 |
22.1% 27.9% |
50% 48.5% |
27.9% 23.6% |
|
| New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK7) LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY | Year | Number Tested | Proficiency Percentages | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Partial | Proficient | Advanced | ||||
| School | 2010-11 2009-10 |
314 304 |
8.9% 5.6% |
56.7% 51.6% |
34.4% 42.8% |
|
| District | 2010-11 2009-10 |
314 304 |
8.9% 5.6% |
56.7% 51.6% |
34.4% 42.8% |
|
| DFG | 2010-11 2009-10 |
4362 4502 |
11.9% 7.6% |
57.3% 52.2% |
30.9% 40.2% |
|
| State | 2010-11 2009-10 |
102032 102516 |
36.1% 30.5% |
51.5% 51.9% |
12.5% 17.6% |
|
| New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK7) MATHEMATICS | Year | Number Tested | Proficiency Percentages | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Partial | Proficient | Advanced | ||||
| School | 2010-11 2009-10 |
315 304 |
12.4% 10.2% |
37.1% 43.1% |
50.5% 46.7% |
|
| District | 2010-11 2009-10 |
315 304 |
12.4% 10.2% |
37.1% 43.1% |
50.5% 46.7% |
|
| DFG | 2010-11 2009-10 |
4373 4525 |
11.8% 11.4% |
36.5% 39.4% |
51.8% 49.2% |
|
| State | 2010-11 2009-10 |
102243 102752 |
33.7% 35.4% |
41.7% 40.1% |
24.6% 24.5 |
|
| New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8) LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY | Year | Number Tested | Proficiency Percentages | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Partial | Proficient | Advanced | ||||
| School | 2010-11 2009-10 |
303 275 |
1.7% 1.5% |
52.5% 57.1% |
45.9% 41.5% |
|
| District | 2010-11 2009-10 |
303 275 |
1.7% 1.5% |
52.5% 57.1% |
45.9% 41.5% |
|
| DFG | 2010-11 2009-10 |
4502 4317 |
3.2% 3.3% |
53.9% 54.2% |
43% 42.5% |
|
| State | 2010-11 2009-10 |
101757 102168 |
17.2% 17.1% |
63.4% 64.4% |
19.4% 18.5% |
|
| National Assessment Educational Progress (NAEP) GRADE 8 READING | Year | Proficiency Percentages | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Below Basic |
Basic | Proficient | Advanced | |||
| State (NJ) | 2011 | 15.8% | 39.5% | 38.6% | 6.2% | |
| Nation | 2011 | 25.3% | 43.0% | 28.6% | 3.0% | |
| New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8) MATHEMATICS | Year | Number Tested | Proficiency Percentages | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Partial | Proficient | Advanced | ||||
| School | 2010-11 2009-10 |
303 275 |
9.2% 8% |
38.3% 37.5% |
52.5% 54.5% |
|
| District | 2010-11 2009-10 |
303 275 |
9.2% 8% |
38.3% 37.5% |
52.5% 54.5% |
|
| DFG | 2010-11 2009-10 |
4503 4327 |
9.3% 9.7% |
34% 33.9% |
56.7% 56.4% |
|
| State | 2010-11 2009-10 |
101833 102161 |
27.9% 31% |
41.4% 39.7% |
30.8% 29.3% |
|
| National Assessment Educational Progress (NAEP) GRADE 8 MATHEMATICS | Year | Proficiency Percentages | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Below Basic |
Basic | Proficient | Advanced | |||
| State (NJ) | 2011 | 17.8% | 35.3% | 33.2% | 13.6% | |
| Nation | 2011 | 27.7% | 38.8% | 25.7% | 7.8% | |
| New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8) SCIENCE | Year | Number Tested | Proficiency Percentages | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Partial | Proficient | Advanced | ||||
| School | 2010-11 2009-10 |
303 274 |
2.6% 1.5% |
37% 39.1% |
60.4% 59.5% |
|
| District | 2010-11 2009-10 |
303 274 |
2.6% 1.5% |
37% 39.1% |
60.4% 59.5% |
|
| DFG | 2010-11 2009-10 |
4499 4323 |
3.8% 3% |
39.7% 37.1% |
56.6% 59.9% |
|
| State | 2010-11 2009-10 |
101769 102161 |
18.2% 16.6% |
52.2% 51.7% |
29.6% 31.6% |
|
| High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY | Year | Number Tested | Proficiency Percentages | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Partial | Proficient | Advanced | ||||
| District | 2010-11 2009-10 |
294 240 |
1% 1.7% |
44.9% 53.3% |
54.1% 45% |
|
| DFG | 2010-11 2009-10 |
3869 3722 |
2.5% 2.2% |
51.5% 54.4% |
46.1% 43.4% |
|
| State | 2010-11 2009-10 |
95035 96852 |
9.6% 12% |
69.3% 69.3% |
21.2% 18.7% |
|
| High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) MATHEMATICS | Year | Number Tested | Proficiency Percentages | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Partial | Proficient | Advanced | ||||
| District | 2010-11 2009-10 |
294 240 |
7.8% 6.6% |
37.8% 39.2% |
54.4% 54.2% |
|
| DFG | 2010-11 2009-10 |
15448 15539 |
10.8% 10.3% |
45.5% 46.7% |
43.7% 43% |
|
| State | 2010-11 2009-10 |
94942 96761 |
23.8% 25% |
50.5% 50.7% |
25.7% 24.3% |
|
| Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Students Taking Test |
Mathematics | Verbal | Essay | |||||||||||
| # | % | Average Score |
Percentile Scores | Average Score |
Percentile Scores | Average Score |
Percentile Scores | |||||||
| 25th | 50th | 75th | 25th | 50th | 75th | 25th | 50th | 75th | ||||||
| 2010-11 | ||||||||||||||
| School | 228 | 78% | 588 | 520 | 600 | 665 | 569 | 505 | 565 | 640 | 591 | 520 | 600 | 660 |
| DFG | 3533 | 91% | 607 | 530 | 610 | 680 | 580 | 510 | 580 | 650 | 591 | 520 | 590 | 670 |
| State | 71195 | 73% | 518 | 440 | 510 | 600 | 494 | 420 | 490 | 570 | 496 | 420 | 490 | 570 |
| 2009-10 | ||||||||||||||
| School | 224 | 92% | 598 | 520 | 600 | 660 | 577 | 510 | 580 | 645 | 595 | 520 | 600 | 650 |
| DFG | 3428 | 92% | 606 | 530 | 610 | 690 | 577 | 510 | 580 | 650 | 588 | 520 | 590 | 660 |
| State | 65673 | 66% | 520 | 440 | 510 | 600 | 496 | 420 | 490 | 570 | 499 | 420 | 490 | 580 |
| 2008-09 | ||||||||||||||
| School | 196 | 96% | 598 | 530 | 605 | 670 | 580 | 515 | 580 | 650 | 585 | 520 | 590 | 660 |
| DFG | 3145 | 87% | 608 | 540 | 620 | 680 | 580 | 510 | 580 | 660 | 587 | 510 | 590 | 670 |
| State | 63618 | 63% | 515 | 430 | 510 | 600 | 494 | 410 | 490 | 570 | 494 | 410 | 490 | 570 |
Editor's note: A previous version of this article stated 100 percent of the juniors and seniors from the 2010-11 school year took Advanced Placement classes. This information was reported on the DOE's School Report Card. However, Interim Superintendent Dennis Fyffe said this is an error. The actual percentage is 67. Chatham Patch has corrected the error and apologizes to our readers.
Duncan Munchkin
2:03 am on Saturday, June 2, 2012
Okay wait. If Chatham schools are 12.3 students per faculty member and the state average is 11 students per faculty member then we are actually worse--like more crowded...get it? You forgot to mention how Chatham failed to beat the DFG average in nearly every single percentile for SATs. Our SAT scores do not beat the AVERAGE of our district financial group. Excellence..where? In lack of mobility? :(
Chatham Resident
6:23 am on Saturday, June 2, 2012
I don't know anything about the DFG/SAT stats, but, Class size vs. students/faculty appear to be two different stats. I assume the difference is that there are fewer administrative positions leaving more staff to teach, making the student to staff ratio higher, but the student to teacher lower the average.