District MAP data show mixed growth; math gains highlighted as literacy rollout begins

District staff presented mid-cycle MAP assessment data and a three-year look at math after the curriculum review, reporting improvements in some grades and continued work needed in literacy.

Presenters explained that MAP growth measures compare student improvement from fall to spring using median growth percentiles; the district’s aim is to be above the 50th percentile for both growth and achievement. Staff said several early grades moved upward from winter to spring and that kindergarten, first and second grades showed measurable year-to-year progress on the district’s growth/achievement charts.

Math was a particular highlight: NES and NIS math scores have trended toward the district’s target quadrant after multi-year professional learning and curriculum adoption. The presenters said NES is now “up in the top right quadrant,” indicating both higher growth and higher achievement, and noted cohort gains from third through fifth grades. At CPS, staff described steady gains in several grades and substantial growth in eighth grade over the three-year span.

Staff emphasized that growth is not sufficient by itself and that achievement must follow. Examples called out in the presentation included first grade showing growth around the 70th percentile and kindergarten achievement near the 60th percentile (as presented by staff). Presenters noted that math MAP and the grade-level MCAS differ: MAP is adaptive to student ability and provides detailed small-group recommendations, whereas MCAS is a grade-level summative assessment.

On literacy, staff said the district has received a Prism 2 grama (as reported in the presentation) and plans to use funds to expand level readers and science-of-reading training. Two contracted coaches from Boston Public Schools were described as scheduled to work with teachers; staff said they will use the coming year as a benchmark and pilot year for ELA implementation and aim to strengthen authentic texts and the district writing program.

Presenters said special populations — English learners and students with IEPs — generally met or exceeded projected growth in math, and the district is closing observed growth gaps between subgroups and the whole student body. Staff flagged that students on IEPs often meet projected growth but still show less observed growth than peers and proposed further analysis to determine whether programming differences explain that outcome.

Planned next steps included targeted professional development (K–5 half-day sessions and a conference-style menu of choices), continued coaching and onboarding supports for new teachers, math-focused professional learning communities, and deeper analysis of subgroup programming.

Committee members asked about testing cadence (some eighth-grade MAP testing was omitted in winter to reduce testing fatigue) and how teachers and PLCs use MAP reports for differentiation; staff described MAP’s small-group lesson plans and said teachers already use the data for interventions.

The presentation was informational; no formal actions were taken. Staff said they will continue to report data and return with MCAS correlations when state results are released.