Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessment Results topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District reports small gains on state tests, highlights early‑literacy and middle‑school changes
Summary
La Mesa‑Spring Valley staff reported a 1% districtwide gain in ELA on SBAC, flat math results, and a 23% reclassification rate for English learners; the district will adopt DIBELS for K–2 screening, refine 'spotlight' students, and reduce middle‑school iReady testing to address assessment fatigue.
District executive directors presented last year’s summative assessment results to the board on Nov. 5 and outlined instructional steps the district will take to support learning growth.
Matt Shai (who introduced assessment findings) said the district saw a 1% overall increase in English language arts proficiency on the SBAC this year, with a 3% elementary increase and a 1% middle‑school gain contributing to that total. Mathematics results were flat across elementary and middle schools, he said. Shai emphasized that sixth graders who moved to middle school showed a positive effect in the data.
On English language development, Allison Long reported a substantial increase in reclassification rates for English learners: 23% reclassified as English proficient this cycle, up from about 8% in prior years. Long and Shai attributed that improvement to an emphasis on integrated ELD, the adoption of standards‑aligned formative assessments, and the district’s monitoring systems.
To address assessment practice and instruction, the district plans the following actions: continue common formative assessments and standards mastery work, implement DIBELS as a reading‑risk screener for K–2 (training and a three‑week window for administration), and shift middle schools to two iReady diagnostics to reduce testing fatigue. The district will also pilot a new math curriculum aligned to the revised California math framework and expand teacher supports (TOSAs) for early literacy.
Board members asked about longitudinal cohort tracking, the apparent dip in some iReady cohorts and the difference between diagnostic and summative measures; presenters described cohort analysis routines and said some variation can reflect motivation or testing fatigue rather than learning loss.
Presenters closed by noting continuing emphasis on ‘best‑first instruction,’ targeted small‑group interventions and monitoring spotlight students to scale instructional improvements across classrooms.
