District shows mid‑year growth on CDT assessments; administrators push targeted interventions and MTSS

Principals and curriculum leaders presented mid‑year CDT (CDT = Curriculum Diagnostic Test aligned to PA standards) results for Liberty Valley Elementary and the district middle school during the Committee of the Whole meeting.

Lede: Liberty Valley Principal Dr. Reinert reported notable growth in math and English Language Arts between the October baseline CDT and the February CDT — for instance, third‑grade students showed a marked drop in the share scoring “basic or below” on the mid‑year test — but proficiency and advanced shares remain below the district’s targets for year‑end performance.

Nut graf: School leaders said the CDTs are used as formative assessments to guide instruction across grade‑level standards. Presenters stressed that mid‑year proficiency is not the final summative measure — the PSSA in April will better indicate year‑end outcomes — and outlined concrete next steps: analyze students who did not grow, place them into MTSS (multi‑tiered systems of supports) or targeted interventions, use flexible ability groups in classrooms, and refine small‑group literacy and math instruction.

Body: At Liberty Valley, staff emphasized that initial October CDTs are often low because the assessment covers standards students will learn through the year. Reinert said math growth between the two CDTs exceeded local growth goals in several grades; literacy growth also improved but did not reach an 80% growth target in all grades. Teachers maintain class‑level spreadsheets that map individual students’ strand performance so classroom instruction and small group work can be tailored, presenters said.

Middle‑school principal Dr. Snover (middle school) presented similar mid‑year gains: math growth rates across sixth to eighth grades were positive (sixth grade ~64% growth, seventh ~75%, eighth ~84% growth on some metrics cited), with notable increases in the share of students reaching proficient/advanced in some grades; ELA growth was also positive but more modest. Snover and other administrators cautioned that February CDTs leave several months of instruction remaining before the spring state tests.

Intervention process and teacher oversight: Administrators described how results are examined by period and by teacher to identify whether growth problems are class‑specific or student‑specific. When students show little or no growth the case is referred to MTSS teams for intervention review; special education staff and gifted‑education staff were cited as part of the review process. Principals said they track caseloads, interventions and progress and use the CDTs and NWEA MAP as regular inputs.

Questions from board members focused on how the district differentiates instruction for accelerated students, how flexible grouping is implemented in elementary grades, and why sixth grade-to‑seventh grade entry scores appeared lower in some comparisons. Administrators said sixth‑to‑seventh grade transitions and differences in tested content at middle grades likely contribute to the pattern; staff are continuing to refine instruction and targeted supports.

Ending: Administrators asked the board to view CDT and MAP results as formative tools that guide in‑year interventions; they said next steps include focused teacher walkthroughs, more targeted small‑group work, and continued use of MTSS to escalate supports where needed.