Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Assessments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fort Lee district reports gains on state tests but flags subgroup gaps
Summary
Superintendent and administrators presented 2024 assessment results showing districtwide increases in proficiency and higher-than-average performance in many grades, while noting persistent subgroup gaps and the need for targeted supports for students with IEPs and multilingual learners.
The Fort Lee Board of Education received a district presentation on student performance for the 2023–24 school year on Nov. 6, where administrators highlighted gains across multiple assessments while acknowledging achievement gaps among subgroups.
Superintendent Doctor Kratos opened the public session and introduced the administration’s data review. Assistant superintendent Diane Crayosso and the district assessment team reported three-year comparisons for AP, IB, SAT and ACT results and provided detailed NJSLA (New Jersey Student Learning Assessment) and DLM (Dynamic Learning Maps) analyses. The district noted increases in AP subject averages in biology, calculus AB, chemistry, English language and composition, U.S. government, Spanish and history, and reported four 2024 IB diploma earners and 24 students currently in the IB program.
On the NJSLA, presenters said district participation rates ranged from about 98% to 100% and that Fort Lee students outperformed the state average in many grades. The percentage of students exceeding expectations across grades rose from 28.6% in 2022 to 32.1% in 2024, and several grade cohorts showed notable improvements in proficiency and advanced levels.
At the same time, the administration flagged persistent subgroup gaps. Presenters pointed to variation across race/ethnicity, economically disadvantaged students, multilingual learners and students with IEPs. The presentation noted growth for some subgroups—Hispanic proficiency rose from roughly 53% in 2022 to 56.8% in 2024 in ELA, and multiple‑race students showed gains in some years—but also stressed that outcomes vary by grade and subject.
Responding to board questions, the district said it uses disaggregated data and multiple measures (benchmark assessments, STAR 360, IEP progress monitoring) to tailor instruction and interventions. The administration noted pilot and planned programs, including new K–5 ELA curricula, an Envision Math rollout for K–4, expanded professional development, and targeted supports intended to address gaps in reading and math. On special education, presenters said IEP teams determine appropriate assessments and supports; the district reported modest gains for some students with IEPs in language arts and math but acknowledged declines in specific science results that will be examined.
Board members and parents on the call urged that data be provided with clear year‑to‑year comparisons and that the administration share how improvements will be sustained. The presentation slides and a district report were said to be available on the district website the following morning.
The board did not take any formal policy votes on assessment matters at the meeting; the discussion concluded with trustees asking for more detailed trend comparisons and plans for stakeholder communication and intervention strategies.
