Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Academic Progress Testing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District reports gain in math on MAP interim assessments; reading growth smaller, literacy work continuing
Summary
Spring-to-spring MAP data show notable math gains at elementary and middle grades and smaller improvements in reading; district staff pointed to adoption of a new K–5 math resource, proficiency scales and targeted professional development and described ongoing literacy work including LETRS, Orton‑Gillingham and PRESS interventions.
District assessment staff presented spring MAP (Measures of Academic Progress) interim results to the Board of Trustees on June 24, reporting measurable growth in mathematics across elementary and middle schools and smaller gains in reading.
Tasha Fussen (district assessment staff) and Superintendent Filan (presenting) framed the MAP results as a spring-to-spring comparison — the district uses fall, winter and spring MAP windows but emphasized that spring-to-spring growth offers a useful year-over-year view of progress. Fussen said elementary and middle-school mathematics showed “the best growth that we’ve seen in the past 4 years” with improvements in achievement and growth metrics. Reading (ELA) showed incremental improvement but did not rise as strongly as mathematics.
Why it matters: Interim assessments inform instruction and intervention. Staff said recent curriculum and professional-development work, particularly a district adoption of a new K–5 math resource (Math and You), realigned proficiency scales and common assessments, and concentrated professional learning have helped produce stronger math results.
Staff highlighted the role of proficiency scales (learning progressions) in guiding instruction and assessment. Fussen and curriculum staff explained how the district’s proficiency scales describe grade-level expectations and the prerequisite learning progression that prepares students to demonstrate a grade-level standard. They gave concrete examples showing how “addition” expectations differ by grade — kindergarten addition examples versus multi‑digit addition in second grade — and explained how teachers use scales to identify and address missing prerequisite skills.
On literacy, district staff said the science-of-reading shift and state legislation (SB 460) are shaping instruction and professional learning needs. The district said it has invested in literacy capacity this year by hiring a Title I-funded district literacy coordinator (Pam Calperthwaite Wade), funding school-based literacy coaches with Title I dollars, and putting teachers through training in PRESS (an intervention framework), Orton‑Gillingham and LETRS (Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling). Staff noted one cohort of about 38 teachers has been doing LETRS training on personal time with district-paid registration; the district is funding Pam Calperthwaite Wade to obtain trainer certification so the district can deliver in-house LETRS training going forward (trainer preparation cited in the packet at about $34,000).
Trustees asked about statewide comparisons and the purpose of winter testing; staff said fall and winter MAPs are utility benchmarks but that spring-to-spring comparisons are most directly useful for year-to-year growth assessment. Trustees also discussed attendance and special-education testing burdens; staff acknowledged tests can be stressful for some special-needs students and said IEP accommodations and state guidelines determine exceptions.
Ending: Staff said math gains reflect several years of curriculum and assessment alignment work and that literacy is a continuing priority; the district will continue to scale teacher training in science-of-reading approaches and report back on implementation and outcomes.
