Jess shared the second MCAS report, a “deep dive”.  She noted that while we’re sharing this now, we have had preliminary data since June and she has been supporting teachers since then to use this data to guide instruction.  She shared a standards tracker she is using with teachers as an example.   Some highlights:

• Grade level variation shows that 3rd and 8th grades are very strong.  Removing their data would bring average performance below the average.
• Math is a little different.  Our elementary program is really strong but we have some  things to learn about in the middle school (MS) grades.  Potentially because we switch curriculums in grade 6 (from Eureka, which includes more direct instruction, to Illustrative Math, which is more conceptual).  Also, we see more student transitions in the MS grades, which likely has an impact on outcomes.  The committee discussed some of the reasons these transitions may be happening (moves, charter high schools, etc.) and some of the ways we are thinking about supporting new students (staffing and scheduling models).
• As an inclusive school, we have a high number of students with disabilities - last year, 30% of students tested had disabilities).   Sally noted that this is really a significant number.
• Jess highlighted the 7th grade cohort, which has a different student profile and had some disruptions in instruction last year.  We don’t anticipate that 7th grade will always be an area of concern but believe there were a number of unique factors which impacted this cohort last year.
• When you look at scaled scores, there are a lot of students very close to meeting expectations.  Bill noted that the goal is not just to get students to meet expectations, but to develop competency in areas of weakness.  Having Jess in a CAO role helps us do this.
• Jess shared some national context, which shows that it is quicker to accelerate progress in Math than it is in ELA. 
• She explained that in ELA, our students struggle with literary analysis, and this is an area we need to focus more on.
• Amneris asked about what we are doing given that literary analysis aligned to MCAS is not an explicit part of our curriculum.  She asked if we should consider curriculum changes or supplements?  Jess shared that she is working one-on-one with teachers to help them adjust curriculum to make this more clear for kids and that she thinks a major curriculum change is not necessary and would feel destabilizing to teachers.  
• Anne noted how important the early grades are for developing literary analytical skills and asked how the non-tested grade levels are thinking about language and the “author moves” Jess referenced.  Jess noted that we are trying to strike a balance between content knowledge and decoding (e.g., decodable readers).  We are also teaching science and social studies in the early grades, which is not the norm in all schools.  
• Black and Latino subgroup performance was above the state average for all students and was very strong compared to subgroups statewide.
• Some subgroup gaps persist, especially between students with disabilities (SWD) and general education students and among racial groups.
• Overall, growth (SGP) was in the high average.  But, our lowest performing students are growing the least.  This lack of growth is concentrated in middle school.  Anne asked about how many students who are not growing are students with disabilities.  Jess shared that most of them were, and while it may be more understandable that they are not meeting expectations on MCAS, we do want to see them making growth.  The growth they make may not be showing up on the grade’s MCAS (whereas growth could be seen on assessments like STEP or Dibbels).
• Jess shared our questions and action steps.  We discussed the tension between taking action steps we see as urgent and maintaining staff satisfaction and sustainability.  

The next meeting is scheduled for 11/15 at 8 am.  Bill will check in with committee members to see if a noon meeting works better.