Medford Public Schools presents MCAS and ACCESS results; district cites modest gains, K–5 and EL reading as priorities
Loading...
Summary
At Tuesday’s Medford School Committee meeting, district leaders reviewed 2025 MCAS and ACCESS data, noting a modest increase in students meeting expectations and identifying K–5 reading and elementary ACCESS outcomes as priority areas for targeted interventions and professional development.
Medford — School district leaders on Tuesday presented 2025 MCAS and ACCESS results to the Medford School Committee, describing modest districtwide gains while flagging persistent gaps for elementary students and English learners.
Dr. Kim Talbot, assistant superintendent for academics and instruction, told the committee that 41% of Medford students met or exceeded MCAS expectations as an aggregate, up from the prior year, while 19% were not meeting expectations (unchanged). The district’s average scaled score was reported as 494, the same as the previous year. Talbot said one school qualifies for targeted assistance under the state accountability framework and that Medford has been paired with TNTP, a state‑funded learning acceleration network, to support improvements.
“Accountability data serves as a diagnostic tool for us to identify where students are thriving and where additional resources or instructional shifts are needed,” Talbot said.
Presenters broke the results down by subject and subgroup. Dr. Nicole Chiesa, who led the civics review, said Medford’s eighth‑grade civics results matched the state on foundations of government and government structures but were two percentage points below the state in the rights‑and‑responsibilities domain. Chiesa said subgroup discrepancies were evident and described professional development with the Center for Civic Education to address gaps.
In English language arts, presenters said grades 3 and 5 “significantly exceeded” state averages in the meets/exceeds category, but other grades fell below the state in some areas; grade 4 performance prompted particular concern. Dr. Chiesa and colleagues described action steps including targeted literacy intervention classes, revised placement and scopes, and consideration of additional high‑quality writing and literacy materials for middle and secondary levels.
Dr. Faiza Khan and others reviewed math trends and praised pockets of strong growth, notably a student growth percentile of 61% in seventh grade at McGlynn. Khan emphasized teacher collaboration, professional learning communities and ongoing use of MAP data to set benchmarks and guide instruction.
Rocco Cieri, director of science, summarized science results and reported year‑over‑year gains in several grades, with the fifth‑grade meets/exceeds level cited at 40% (up six percentage points). Cieri credited stable staffing and a consistent biology curriculum for high‑school gains.
Chelsea McNiff presented ACCESS results for English learners, saying the district serves roughly 522 English learners, about 13% of enrollment. McNiff said ACCESS is a growth‑based measure and that Medford’s secondary EL students (grades 6–12, especially grades 7–9) outperformed state averages in meeting progress targets, while many K–5 grades trailed the state. Reading at grades 1–5 and speaking across K–12 were highlighted as areas needing more explicit instructional alignment.
To address the findings, district leaders outlined several steps: expanding targeted professional development (including partners Hill for Literacy and TNTP), aligning newcomer programs to core literacy curricula, placing EL coaches in middle‑school challenge blocks, using the OpenArchitects data platform to integrate MCAS and MAP results, conducting learning walks with coaching partners, and continuing districtwide action planning focused on academic discourse and grade‑level tasks.
Committee members used the Q&A to press for subgroup analysis and program evaluation. Member Russo asked whether the discrepancy between high classroom grades and lower MCAS proficiency had been disaggregated by subgroup; presenters said subgroup and domain analysis is part of the ongoing work and reiterated a priority on ensuring grade‑level tasks are given to students in classrooms.
The committee did not take formal votes on curriculum purchases or program adoptions in the meeting; the presentation concluded with planned follow‑up work and a referral to the district’s strategic planning efforts.
