Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Assessment Results topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ridgefield reviews 2025 state test data, highlights growth focus and asks for more disaggregated reporting
Summary
District staff told the board that Ridgefield's spring 2025 state results show above-target performance indexes in ELA (80) and math (79.2) while growth targets were achieved by 67.2% (ELA) and 74.1% (math); board members pressed for separate reporting of levels 3 and 4, school-by-school breakdowns, and targeted responses for a dip at the fifth—to—sixth-grade transition.
District staff presented Ridgefield's spring 2025 standardized assessment results and urged the board to prioritize student growth while continuing to monitor proficiency. The presentation, given by district curriculum leads, compared Ridgefield to similar Connecticut districts and summarized cohort trends across ELA, mathematics and NGSS science.
Why it matters: Presenters said growth better captures year-to-year learning, especially for students who begin below grade level, and that aligning internal assessments with state measures supports earlier intervention. Ridgefield reported a performance index of 80 in ELA (state target 75) and 79.2 in math, while the share of students meeting growth targets was 67.2% in ELA (unchanged from last year) and 74.1% in math.
Presenters and evidence: Jeff Corbishley (6—12 math and science supervisor) explained the Edsite scatterplot used to show each district's performance and growth; Ridgefield was the highlighted orange dot representing 1,644 students in grades 4——2 and 11. Annie Tucci (6—12 humanities supervisor) and Melinda Johnson (director of elementary education) walked the board through cohort charts, level distributions (levels 1—6, with 3 and 4 combined in some summary views) and examples of cohort movement year to year. For NGSS, presenters noted roughly 80% proficiency in grades 5 and 8 but a decline at grade 11 that the high school is studying for curricular alignment and scheduling effects.
Board questions and key concerns: Board members repeatedly asked for more granular views. Board member Sean Makavoy urged the team to stop aggregating levels 3 and 4 in summary views so that high-performing level-4 students are visible and served differently than marginal level-3 students; staff replied that some slides already show the four-level breakdown and agreed to make separation clearer going forward. Several members, including John Paradiso, asked for cohort-by-school reporting; Dr. D Silva and other staff said the district has school-level data and examines it internally but has limited public use of those school-level comparisons because differences in student populations (special education, ELL, MTSS concentration) sometimes fuel community alarm and misinterpretation. Staff offered to provide school-level cohort data to the board on request.
On leading indicators and diagnostics: The district described recent changes to universal screeners (switching to i-Ready in some settings) and emphasized building-based data teams and item analysis to identify content gaps (for example, specific fifth-grade math content). Presenters said triangulation of screener, classroom and state data allows earlier intervention, and that the teams are using that information to plan differentiated professional learning and targeted interventions (MTSS).
On transition points and staffing: Several board members flagged a dip between fifth and sixth grades in some cohorts and asked whether teacher assignments or turnover contributed. Staff said middle- and high-school configurations and teacher specialization can affect outcomes, but that department-level alignment, test-prep opportunities and systemwide scaffolds (learning labs, flex periods, executive-function instruction) are being used to reduce transition shocks.
What's next: Staff recommended continued emphasis on growth measures, targeted curriculum and pacing adjustments where cohorts dip, and clearer public reporting of disaggregated level data and cohort-by-school comparisons for board review. The district said it will continue aligning internal assessments with state measures and will provide the requested school-by-school cohort breakdown to the board upon request.
Ending: The board moved from this presentation into a separate agenda item on high-school counseling; no formal motions or votes were taken on the assessment materials during this session.
