Salem Public Schools reports MCAS gains in grades 3–8; officials flag writing and subgroup gaps

Superintendent Dr. Zweig told the Salem School Committee on Oct. 6 that Salem Public Schools showed notable year-over-year MCAS improvements in grades 3–8, but that the district still faces subgroup gaps and early-grade writing deficits.

Dr. Zweig led the presentation and said the district’s grades 3–8 results improved at a higher rate than the state in all three tested subjects between 2024 and 2025: English language arts rose by 8 percentage points, mathematics rose by 2 percentage points, and science rose by 3 percentage points. "We're outpacing many of them," Dr. Zweig said of comparable districts, adding that the gains reflected sustained work by teachers and school leaders during pandemic recovery.

The presentation team said the district met or exceeded more state‑set targets over the last two years than any other gateway city in Massachusetts. "For the second year in a row, the Salem Public Schools met or exceeded more targets than any gateway city in the Commonwealth," Deputy Superintendent Kay Carboni said.

Presenters differentiated between achievement (percent meeting/exceeding standards) and student growth percentiles (SGPs). Sonya, an assessment presenter, said several schools posted very high SGPs, including Salem High School, which presenters described as having SGPs above 60 in some measures — a level they called "exceptional." Sonya also said Collins Middle School rose from the bottom 10th percentile in prior years to roughly the 21st percentile, and that Saltonstall and other middle grades showed double‑digit percentage point gains in students meeting expectations.

At the same time, presenters and committee members flagged persistent equity and early‑grade issues. Sonya said writing scores on the MCAS essay component show a large share of students scoring at the lowest rubric levels in early grades: "starting in third grade, we have about 85% of our students at a 0 or a 1" on idea development for essays, she said. Panelists urged district focus on K–2 instruction and cross‑content writing practice to improve those outcomes.

Committee members asked for comparative disproportionality data. Member Cornell asked whether the district could show subgroup gaps relative to other gateway cities; Carboni said the district could produce that targeted comparison. Member Amber Cruz asked about learning opportunities with higher‑performing districts; the district said staff already participate in design and improvement networks and would pursue additional peer learning.

Presenters also described accountability mechanics: schools with large enough cohorts receive a percentile rank that compares their performance to similar schools statewide, and the state measures progress against a set of annual targets (achievement, growth, course completion, English‑language proficiency, advanced coursework, dropout rates). The presenters noted that no Salem school currently fell below the state’s 10th percentile intervention threshold, though Salem High School received a participation‑based designation for one year because it missed the state’s 95% participation threshold by roughly one percentage point.

The district ran the new grade‑8 civics assessment for the first time this year; staff described the results as baseline data that does not yet factor into accountability percentiles. Carboni explained the assessment format and said the district will use the results to guide instruction.

Superintendent Dr. Zweig and deputies emphasized that the data packet provided to committee members includes detailed school‑level breakout tables and that the presentation covered only part of the packet; the district plans to present high‑school results and additional breakdowns at a follow‑up meeting.

Looking ahead, district leaders said they will prioritize early‑grade writing supports, targeted coaching where classroom‑level variation is large, item analyses to identify question‑level weaknesses, and additional comparative analyses of subgroup disproportionality versus selected gateway peers.

The presentation prompted several follow‑up requests from the committee — including a focused comparison of subgroup disproportionality to other gateway cities and additional classroom‑level data — and staff agreed to provide those materials before the November meeting.

Ending: The committee did not vote on any policy or program as part of the MCAS presentation; the session was a data briefing and planning discussion. Staff asked members to review the full data packet and send requests for additional slices of the data ahead of the next meeting.