Oakland district reports mixed 2025 NJSLA results, highlights post‑pandemic growth strategy
Loading...
Summary
Dr. Dana Walker, special assistant for school improvement, presented the district’s 2025 assessment results, explaining state suppression rules and highlighting gains in several cohorts—notably fifth‑grade math—while urging continued focus on accelerated growth strategies.
Dr. Dana Walker, special assistant for school improvement, performance and accountability, told the Board of Education that the district’s 2025 assessment presentation covers ACCESS, DLM and the New Jersey Student Learning Assessment (NJSLA) and that state rules prevent publication of very small subgroup counts.
"Before I get to the ACCESS, please know that in the state of New Jersey, there is a suppression law to protect the identity of students," Walker said, noting the district could not publicly report some subgroup results where counts fell below the state‑set threshold.
The presentation showed mixed results across grades 3–5. For NJSLA ELA, the district reported a three‑year snapshot in which grade‑level percentages met or exceeded standards were 25% (3rd), 56.3% (4th), and 63.4% (5th). In math, third grade rose to 32.5%, fourth grade was 25%, and fifth grade reached 53.7%—with the district exceeding the state average in fifth‑grade math by 18.4 percentage points. The district also reported a three‑year increase in fifth‑grade science proficiency to 33.3%, above the state average of 30.1%.
Board members pressed staff on whether low 3rd‑grade ELA proficiency reflected a COVID‑era cohort effect or other anomalies. Superintendent Doctor McDowell responded that the district’s priority after the pandemic is growth rather than status and emphasized acceleration strategies already underway.
District leaders described specific supports used to accelerate student learning: adoption and use of MAP universal screeners, expanded professional learning and data meetings, dedicated "learning acceleration" teachers, MTSS (multi‑tiered system of supports) routines, and targeted interventions for students approaching proficiency. The district said MAP results and grade‑level data were used to build individual plans and to allocate staff resources, including bringing experienced teachers in targeted roles.
Dr. Walker walked the board through disaggregated numbers where allowed. For grade 5 science, the district reported 50% of tested males met or exceeded proficiency (a 25% increase year‑over‑year for that subgroup) and 34.4% of white students met or exceeded standards (a 5.4% increase). For economically disadvantaged status in grade 5 science, 16.7% met or exceeded standards compared with 40% of non‑economically disadvantaged students. Several subgroup counts (Hispanic, Black, and some IEP groups) were suppressed under state rules and therefore not reported.
Board members and staff also discussed the statistical sensitivity of small cohorts. One board member pointed out that in a small school a change of a few students can swing percentages considerably; staff confirmed a single‑digit change in counts can materially affect reported rates.
The board asked administrators to share the slides and to send a parent‑facing summary of the results with explanation of suppressed counts and next steps. The superintendent said the district will distribute the data with context and describe planned supports for families.
The presentation closed with an outline of district priorities tied to the data: strengthen differentiated instruction, continue MAP and DIBELS screening, increase data‑driven PLC time, expand tiered interventions, and monitor pilot curricular changes.
The presentation generated extended discussion but no formal action was required; it concluded with board consensus to continue the district’s acceleration and monitoring strategy.
