Hopkins workshop spotlights testing, local performance gaps and classroom assessment alternatives

Hopkins Public Schools used the September workshop to present three linked assessment topics: district data on student-body composition and test proficiency; state assessment (MCA and ACCESS) technicalities and trends; and classroom assessment practices aimed at reducing high-stakes stress and improving instruction.

NUT GRAF: Presenters emphasized that statewide tests (MCAs and ACCESS) are only one aspect of student assessment. District analysts showed statewide correlations between school demographics (percent students of color, FRPL eligibility) and MCA proficiency and described the statistical adjustments and participation rules that affect reported proficiency. A separate presentation urged more balanced, classroom-focused assessment practices — formative checks, standards-aligned end-of-unit assessments and culturally relevant tasks — to raise students’ learning and sense of agency.

What the district data showed: Senior researcher Dr. Anoosha Nath and district analysts displayed statewide scatterplots that showed a negative relationship between share of students of color and MCA proficiency, with steeper declines in schools above the 50% threshold. The district’s high school and many middle schools sat above the predicted proficiency line given their demographic composition, the presentation said. The slides flagged opt‑out rates and differences in test‑taking as important measurement challenges.

ACCESS (English‑learner) and MCA technical notes: The presentation clarified three ways the state reports test data: (1) the test results/participation report (proficiency among test takers with valid scores); (2) the MDE “North Star” academic‑achievement calculation (counts all enrolled students, treating non‑participants the same as not proficient); and (3) academic‑progress calculations that require two valid scores to measure growth. The district’s ACCESS summary showed most EL students clustered in intermediate proficiency levels, with roughly half meeting annual growth targets; analysts cautioned about small samples and the need to disaggregate at school level.

Assessment practice and classroom change: Nicole Dimich, an assessment architect who has worked with districts nationally, described an instruction‑centered approach to assessment. Dimich urged balancing external and benchmark tests with high‑quality classroom unit assessments and regular formative checks for learning. She argued that assessment should build students’ “hope” — the belief their future outcomes can improve through effort and meaningful feedback — and gave classroom examples of breaking a grade into learning targets and giving targeted feedback so a student who scored 67% can see concrete next steps.

Transportation and opt‑outs as measurement problems: Multiple board members and the audience asked about students who opt out of statewide tests and whether that changes school‑level proficiency comparisons. Analysts said the district is investigating opt‑out patterns and will produce adjustments and school‑level briefings in coming months; corrective modeling and careful communication will be part of the follow-up.

ENDING: District staff said they would circulate the slides, provide finer school‑level breakdowns, and present protocol templates to support building teams’ data analysis. Workshop presenters asked the board to treat MCAs as a signal for further investigation rather than as a standalone measure of school quality.