Norfolk board hears winter growth data showing persistent reading and math gaps, calls for accelerated supports

Miss McGarity, the divisions monitoring lead, told the Norfolk Public Schools Board at its April 1 work session that interim measures for Board Goal 4 show mixed progress: many schools improved year-to-year, but gaps between student groups remain large and in some cases widened.

The presentation separated two stories: one that examines each focus groups raw proficiency (the accompanying story) and another that examines proficiency gaps between a focus group (for example, Black students) and a comparison group (for example, White students). Miss McGarity said the division uses the State Growth Assessment (SGA), administered fall, winter and spring, and cautioned that this years fall administration occurred six weeks later than in prior years, which complicates fall-to-winter comparisons.

On the winter assessment, she illustrated the reading measure with the Black student group: winter proficiency for the Black focus group was reported at about 52.4% versus about 79.3% for the White comparison group, producing a reported gap of 26.9 percentage points. In math, she cited a similar concern for students with disabilities: 28.3% proficient for students with disabilities versus 59.4% for students without, a 31.1-point gap. She emphasized that in some administrations a gap narrowed because the higher-performing group declined, which is not the desired outcome; the goal is for lower-performing groups to accelerate.

The presenter said progress is visible at the school level: a majority of schools improved proficiency for many student groups winter-to-winter (examples cited: 67% of schools improved for Asian students, 53% for English learners), but that level of school improvement has not produced the acceleration needed to close long-term gaps. To address that, the division is prioritizing two instructional levers: stronger Tier 1 instruction and a layered system of individualized supports (including small-group remediation, scripted tutoring options and evidence-based digital platforms).

Miss McGarity named specific programs the division uses: Lexia Learning for reading and Zearn for math, each described as evidence-based by the divisions external research consultation and by national clearinghouses. She said data show higher usage of those platforms correlates with higher likelihood of proficiency on the SGA, particularly for English learners, but she cautioned that formative tools are used for classroom-level planning rather than as formal public metrics.

Board members asked for clarifications and next steps: they requested winter-to-winter historical displays in the public monitoring packet, more school-level diagnostics about which schools (and why) are not improving, and whether the division has conducted statistical correlation studies between formative unit assessments and the SGA. Staff said the division uses multiple formative data points in school accountability meetings and will consider adding correlation work but has not yet completed a formal statistical analysis.

Board members and staff flagged next practical steps: prioritize supports to accelerate lower-performing groups, continue coach- and walkthrough-based feedback to strengthen Tier 1 instruction, and use targeted grants and professional development to scale practices. The board also asked staff to provide the monitoring materials with clearer year-over-year winter comparisons when the formal report is posted.

The board will receive related materials again on the monitoring agenda; no formal board action was taken on the measures at this meeting.