Norfolk schools see measurable gains in reading and math but many subgroup gaps remain

At a school board workshop, Dr. Cole presented interim results for School Board Goal 4 — the divisionwide target to reduce achievement gaps in reading and mathematics for grades 3–8. The presentation compared fall and winter benchmark (STAR) results and set annual targets for subgroups including Black students, students with disabilities (SWD), students eligible for free/reduced-price meals (SES), English learners (EL), and Hispanic students.

The report showed improvements from fall to winter across nearly all subgroups in both reading and math proficiency on STAR assessments, but several subgroup gaps remain above winter targets. Dr. Cole said the division is “moving in the right direction” while noting some measures remained yellow on internal progress charts after a prior color-coding error.

Why it matters: Goal 4 sets specific proficiency and urgent-intervention targets that guide instruction and resource allocation. The winter data inform spring testing and summer interventions, and board members pressed staff on whether the division can accelerate progress before annual targets are due.

Most important facts: For reading (Measure 4.1), Dr. Cole reported target moves such as Black students from 42.6% to 63% proficiency, SWD from 21.7% to 48%, EL from 17.8% to 43%, and Hispanic students from 46.3% to 65%. On the urgent-intervention side the targets aim to reduce percentages in the lowest band (for example Black students from 36.9% to 20% and SWD from 62.1% to 40%). The winter STAR window showed all subgroups improved in proficiency, but gaps widened for EL vs. non-EL and Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic from fall to winter; the SWD urgent-intervention percentage remained high (reported at about 45% in the winter data).

For mathematics (Measure 4.2), progress was described as similarly positive overall: proficiency gains across subgroups from fall to winter, with some increases in gaps — notably the Black–White proficiency gap rose by 1.8 points and the SWD–non‑SWD proficiency gap remained large (reported at 33.5 points). The math office reported expanded usage of Zearn and Edmentum (student usage rose from about 12% in fall to 48.9% in the spring window and average session time increased), and lesson completion per session rose from under 0.5 to about 1.1 lessons. The division also reported more coaching: math specialists’ support logs showed coaching cycles referenced in roughly 42% of entries reviewed.

What staff say they are doing: The English and math offices described a set of continuing actions: targeted student reading plans and progress monitoring, expanded instructional coaching and replicable PD for reading and math specialists and department chairs, triage and strand-level unit analysis to prioritize supports, expansion of the SIM professional development cohort (in partnership with William & Mary), and greater collaboration between ESL and content teachers. Staff also noted Lexia usage (Core5 for elementary, PowerUp for secondary) produced gains: 31% of students who began below grade level in Lexia Core5 moved to grade level, and 24% in Lexia PowerUp moved to grade level.

Board questions and requests: Board members pressed for school-level breakdowns and for grade‑cohort views (elementary vs. middle) to surface trends and staffing implications. Dr. Cole said division-level data were prepared for the presentation but that school-level reports could be run on request. Board Member Inge asked whether increased usage of digital platforms correlated with subgroup gains; Dr. Cole said higher, consistent usage correlated with higher performance across subgroups.

Context and next steps: Staff said target monitoring will continue through spring unit tests and into summer planning; the English office and learning support will use grant-funded collaboration (Virginia Literacy Grant and related awards) to replicate effective strategies at more schools. The division will implement a divisionwide classroom-observation tool focused on specially-designed instruction and co-teaching in 2025–26. No formal board votes were taken on these measures during the workshop — the session was an informational review of interim data and planned next steps.

Ending: Board members requested follow-up reports showing school- and grade-level disaggregation and a clearer link between staffing allocations (including long‑term substitutes and special-education staffing) and subgroup performance for the next data cycle.