Monroe County schools present raw PM3 results showing districtwide gains in several grades

Heidi Roberts, ELA coordinator for Monroe County School District, presented the district's Progress Monitoring 3 (PM3) assessment data at the June 18 board meeting, stressing the figures shown were "the raw data." Roberts said the state's forthcoming release will filter out students in the United States less than two years, which will raise some schools' proficiency rates compared with the unfiltered numbers shown to the board.

Roberts highlighted that, on grade-level comparisons, the district performed above the state in both third-grade ELA and third-grade math proficiency. She pointed to specific schools: Gerald Adams was reported at about 55% proficiency in third-grade ELA, PKS (Primary Key School) was reported above 70% in ELA and 76% in math in multiple grades, and Poinciana Elementary posted fifth-grade math proficiency at 67%, "10% higher than the state average," she said. Roberts also cited Sugarloaf's cohort gains ("improved by 12% in ELA and 13% in math") and Key Largo School's jump in one cohort from 47% to 71% in ELA.

Board members asked for comparisons between PM2 and PM3 to measure growth. Roberts said some PM2 cohort figures were available but not shown on the screen; she and other staff (Ms. Acevedo and members of the curriculum team) said they would distribute cohort PM2→PM3 comparisons to the board. Roberts gave one example: a sixth-grade cohort whose PM2 ELA proficiency was 33% and rose to 41% by PM3.

Roberts described district strategies she credited with gains: targeted gap analyses in fifth grade, curriculum changes between fifth and sixth grade, standards-based instruction, and tiered professional learning for teachers. She said math curriculum alignment and interventions for English learners (focus on cross-genre reading and vocabulary) were factors in middle-school improvements.

She said the district will use the raw PM3 data, strand data and PM1/2/3 progress monitoring in workshops with principals to set school improvement goals, identify required professional learning, and target subgroup supports prior to the next school year.

Board members and staff noted several follow-up items: (1) supply the board with PM2→PM3 cohort comparisons and sample counts (some small cohorts were called out as "about seven" at one school); (2) provide strand-level explanations where proficiency appears low but cohort growth is positive; and (3) add a short August presentation showing how school improvement-plan goals aligned to assessment changes.

Roberts emphasized the presentation used unfiltered results and that the state's filtered release next month will change proficiency rates for schools with many recently arrived English learners.

Ending

The board did not take formal action on the PM3 slides at the meeting; members asked staff to circulate the PM2→PM3 cohort data and to prepare an August follow-up that ties assessment results to school improvement-plan goals and supports.