Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears spring 2025 NJGPA results; officials outline subgroup outcomes and intervention plans
Summary
District staff presented spring 2025 NJGPA, ACCESS and DLM results showing 93.8% ELA and 86.5% math graduation readiness for tested cohorts; board members sought percentile context for cut scores and details on targeted interventions, retest scheduling and peer-district comparisons.
Dr. Maher presented the district's spring 2025 assessment outcomes for the New Jersey Graduation Proficiency Assessment (NJGPA), ACCESS for ELLs and the Dynamic Learning Maps alternate assessment. For the spring administration Dr. Maher reported that 195 of 208 tests (93.8%) met the NJGPA proficiency cut for English language arts and 180 of 208 tests (86.5%) met the cut for mathematics. She said the state cut score is 725 and that the State Board's 2023 adoption of alternative pathways remains in effect for the classes of 2024—6.
The presenter reviewed subgroup reporting rules (results not publicly displayed where fewer than 10 students would identify individuals) and provided subgroup percentages where reportable: for example, among reportable subgroups the presentation listed Asian, Hispanic and white subgroup percentages for ELA and mathematics. For multilingual learners the ACCESS results were reported by proficiency levels; the DLM cohort was too small to report publicly this year.
Board members asked procedural and practical questions: which percentile the 725 cut score corresponds to and how the state derived that level; whether the district can provide peer comparisons to similar-size districts (New Providence was suggested as a comparator); how often targeted remediation meets (administration said targeted intervention sessions meet multiple times per week, usually 2—3 times); and whether evidence statements can guide the six-week intervention window before fall retesting (October is the fall retest window). Dr. Maher committed to supplying more context on percentile equivalents and to include peer-district comparisons in the forthcoming NJSLA presentation when state results are available.
Board members also pressed on students with IEPs and special education pathways: the administration explained that students who do not meet NJGPA cut scores may retake the test, use substitute competency tests, or pursue the portfolio appeals pathway; targeted remediation and additional summer or in-year interventions are used in coordination with school-level supports. Several board members requested that the administration present specific metrics and longitudinal analysis that trace cohorts backward (9th and 10th grade data) to better understand why students fall behind and whether earlier interventions are effective.
The presentation concluded with an acknowledgement that subgroup reporting and small-cohort privacy rules limit what is visible in public reports and a pledge from administration to provide additional, board-only detail as needed to inform instructional adjustments and the district's strategic planning.
