MNPS reports mixed winter screening results; officials highlight instructional coherence and next steps

Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools’ executive staff told the board that winter screening and recent benchmark assessments show steady progress in math and mixed results in reading, and outlined steps to refine interpretation and support schools.

Dr. Tina Stinson, Executive Director of Research, Assessment and Evaluation, said the district administered adaptive FastBridge reading and math screeners to “just over 38,000 students in grades 2 through 9” with a participation rate of “96.3 percent.” She reported that district math scores were higher than reading and that the percentage of students in the lowest two national quintiles increased slightly in English language arts from fall to winter. “We will soon receive some data with seasonal norms that help us adjust the data a little bit from what you’re seeing, to better interpret school and district performance,” Stinson said.

The assessment update matters because screening and benchmark data drive instruction, interventions and resource allocation. Stinson said the district’s focused growth outcome — the percentage of students maintaining or improving their percentile from fall to spring — was on track at midyear: “we’re on track to meet it for all students with 51.5% of students maintaining or improving their percentile.” She cautioned that some fall‑to‑winter changes appear linked to vendor scoring and seasonal norm issues and that district staff are working with Renaissance, the vendor, to clarify patterns.

Dr. David Williams, Deputy Chief of Academics, walked board members through benchmark examples from multiple grade levels and explained how non‑traditional item types affect results and interpretation. “Multi select problems … the student has to get all 3 correct answers selected and only those 3 correct answers,” Williams said, describing how some item types require exactly correct combinations to be scored correct. He explained evidence‑based selected response items (EBSR) and technology‑enhanced (TEI) items such as drag‑and‑drop or dropdowns, and urged looking at item‑level response patterns in the assessment portal to distinguish content gaps from item‑type challenges.

Board members pressed for instructional detail. Member Tyler asked how schools will build critical‑thinking opportunities that align across classroom instruction and supplemental time; Williams and district leaders pointed to an instructional coherence strategy that aligns tier 1 curriculum, PLT (professional learning time) and targeted interventions so students practice the same skills across contexts. Stinson and Williams said coaches, principals and ILTs (instructional leadership teams) will use benchmark analysis protocols and the data portal to identify problems of practice and plan supports.

Next steps and timelines provided in the presentation included receiving seasonal norms from the vendor; closing the quarter‑three benchmark window on March 6; uploading cleaned benchmark and screening data to the district dashboard and family‑facing portals a few weeks after windows close; and continuing school visits and coaching to translate findings into instruction. The staff presentation emphasized that benchmarks are one tool among others and that schools are already using data to refine small‑group instruction and core lessons.

Board members asked for clearer family‑facing guidance about what portal results mean; district staff said the portal does not currently flag nuanced item‑type trends directly to families but that teachers and principals can use item‑level analyses to inform communications and conferences.

The board received the report; no formal action was taken during the presentation.