District reports mixed gains in reading, flags math cohort inconsistencies

At a July 29 Lindbergh School District board workshop, staff presented the district’s annual growth and achievement review, reporting that reading performance met the district’s Compass target while growth targets and math results showed shortfalls and uneven cohort trends. The presentation covered early literacy (FastBridge), I-Ready math diagnostics, NWEA (third grade through high school), CBM/passage reading, and high-school measures including ACT and Algebra 1 results.

The presentation said the district met its reading performance goal (82% of students scoring in “average to high” on spring measures) but did not meet its growth goal: 65% of students showed average-to-high growth versus a district target of 70%. Staff emphasized that some subgroups and grades showed improvement (for example, third-grade CBM spring results were above target) while middle-school and some math cohorts showed concerning dips.

Why it matters: district targets matter for instructional priorities, staffing and curriculum decisions. Reading results were cited as evidence that sustained investments in literacy professional learning and the science-of-reading work are producing measurable gains. District leaders said math will be a priority for curriculum revision, teacher professional learning and deeper analysis of cohort-level trends.

Key facts and figures presented - District Compass goals: 82% performance target; 70% growth target. Spring results: reading performance 82% (met) and growth 65% (below target). - Early literacy: FastBridge and early reading measures showed many students demonstrating “typical to aggressive” growth; kindergarten–1st combined typical/aggressive growth ~58%; presenters highlighted many students who moved from low to near-target scores between fall and spring. - K–2 math (I-Ready): district reported 64% typical-to-stretch growth for K–2; kindergarten reported ~81% at target level, first grade ~77% and second grade ~72% on grade-level placement measures aligned to Missouri Learning Standards. - NWEA (3–high school): third–fifth grade reading results met the 80% target for average-to-high performance (third grade spring ~83%; fourth 83%; fifth 84%). District growth on NWEA reading was ~65% (district target 70%). Fourth- and fifth-grade NWEA math met targets (82% and 81% average-to-high performance), third grade fell just under the 80% target (79%). Middle school math averages were lower (sixth ~71%, seventh ~75%, eighth higher) and cohort patterns were inconsistent year to year. - High school: English I cohort showed a strong trajectory (spring composite improvement noted). Algebra I spring composite rose slightly (61% to 62%) but Algebra I includes students across grades and cohort comparisons are complicated when advanced students are tested in middle school. - College and career measures: ACT was offered to juniors (about 409 participants; composite 22 for first-time takers; five perfect section scores reported); Advanced Placement participation and pass rates rose (625 students, 803 exams, 89% exam pass rate in 2025, up from prior years).

Concerns and follow-up directions discussed Board members pressed for more targeted math analysis. Staff agreed to run cohort-level trend reports (for example, longitudinal sixth-grade comparisons across the last three years) and to examine whether assessment differences (NWEA vs. MAP/state tests vs. district measures) reflect testing artifacts or instructional issues. Staff also flagged planned actions: a math curriculum rewrite, targeted professional learning for math teachers, and continued focus on MTSS (multi-tiered systems of support) to close subgroup gaps.

Subgroup and equity notes Staff reviewed subgroup trajectories (special education, multilingual learners, free/reduced-price meal students, Black and Hispanic students). Presenters noted positive trajectory for some groups (e.g., free/reduced gap narrowing in reading) but said gaps for Black and Hispanic students and for students with IEPs remain sizable and will require targeted work.

Staff emphasized that some metrics double-count students in multiple categories (a student can appear in special-education, FRL and ML categories simultaneously), and that results reflect point-in-time status rather than only long-term enrollment.

What the board asked staff to do Board members requested cohort-level trend reports for specific grades and years, breakdowns for tiered intervention groups (tier 2 vs tier 3), and further analysis reconciling NWEA and state MAP results. Staff committed to produce those analyses and to summarize planned curriculum and professional-development steps in upcoming packets.

Ending note Presenters said district staff will transition to the I-Ready platform k–8 next year to produce a more seamless set of district diagnostics, while also working to align prior FastBridge/NWEA trend lines to new baselines. Staff asked the board to view current results as part of a multi-year trajectory and noted reading gains as evidence the district’s literacy investments are yielding returns, while also calling for intensified action in mathematics.