Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District staff review midyear assessment data showing mixed gains, persistent math weaknesses
Summary
District staff presented progress-monitoring (PM1 to PM2) assessment results across elementary, middle and high schools; presenters said many students moved from level 1 to level 2 in reading and math, but several grades and schools still showed high shares at the lowest level, especially in math.
Miss Thomas presented midyear progress-monitoring results for the district, showing mixed but measurable gains in English language arts (ELA) and uneven progress in math.
“We want to see more students scoring at higher levels than they scored from PM1 to PM2,” Miss Thomas said, describing the district’s expectation that students tested in August (PM1) and again in December (PM2) should show movement to higher performance bands. She added that PM assessments cover the standards for the entire school year so early-year level-1 scores can reflect standards students have not yet been taught.
The presentation showed examples from several schools. At Greenville Elementary, third-grade ELA level-1 scores fell from about 75% in August to 58% in December, and level-2 scores rose from 8% to 25%, indicating some growth. By contrast, Greenville third-grade math remained largely unchanged, with roughly 73% of students at level 1 in both PM1 and PM2. At other schools districts saw larger math gains: Pineetta Elementary’s third-grade math level-1 rate dropped from 67% to 13% and level-3/4 proficiency rose, while Madison County Central School’s fourth-grade math level-1 rate fell from about 90% to 71% with small numbers reaching level 4 or 5 by December.
Miss Thomas told the board principals and teachers “drill down to the exact students” and use targeted tutoring and benchmark-focused instruction to address deficits. Board members pressed on how the percentages are calculated when student rosters change; Miss Thomas explained the PM percentages reflect the students present and tested at each administration and that school-level decisions use the February FTE window to identify which students will count for school grades.
Board members noted that small grade cohorts make percentage swings large (for example a 4th-grade class with eight students) and asked for school-level lists showing which individual students are driving gains or declines. Miss Thomas said administrators already match assessments to individual students and use targeted interventions; she said that work will continue ahead of spring testing.
The presentation covered elementary through high-school grades; for 9th- and 10th-grade ELA the district uses state ELA progress monitoring (the district runs its own internal monitoring for algebra and geometry). Miss Thomas said the district expects additional growth by state test time in May.
The report drew no formal board vote but prompted follow-up requests for school-level rosters and plans to target the students who will count in the February FTE window.
