Jess presented the MCAS and Accountability Report.  

• The headline is that the school is exceeding state averages in all tested subjects and remains the strongest performing school, or among the strongest performing schools, in Springfield.  Performance increased slightly in ELA and Math and declined in science.
• In comparison to other schools in Springfield, the school is doing very well, ranking first in math for the second year in a row. 
• Jess and Sally noted an improvement in their accountability score, which increased by 5 percentile points compared to the previous year. They also highlighted a significant decrease in chronic absenteeism rates, crediting the school culture team for their efforts.
• Sally discussed the issue of chronic absenteeism at Springfield Prep, noting that this seems to be an area of strength.  
• Jess presented data on ELA and math performance improvements, despite state trends. She also discussed a slight decline in science performance, attributing it to an overall decrease in 8th grade results rather than a subgroup concern.
• The committee discussed some of the ways the school is able to support students, including the Associate Teacher program. 

Jess presented the school’s growth data in ELA and Math according to Student Growth Percentile (SGP) scores. 

• She highlighted the significant increase in SGP scores over the previous year, with ELA at 60.3 and Math at 59. 
• She noted the exceptionally high achievement and growth in 4th grade and noted that we see lower growth outcomes in the  6th and 7th grades, which we attribute in part to the new students entering these grades with lower academic backgrounds. 
• Bill added that the variation in results is normal and that they are working hard to provide additional support in the 6th and 7th grade. Jess expressed concerns about the ongoing challenges faced by 7th graders, who were previously 6th graders, despite the efforts of teachers. She suggested that these challenges might persist and could potentially affect the 7th graders in the coming year. 

Jess discussed performance at the cohort level, highlighting that many students fell into the partially meeting band, with fewer close to the meeting band.  

• The team agreed on the need for more detailed data, such as the distribution of students across the meeting, partially meeting, and not meeting bands. Bill provided specific data for the 7th grade, showing that 27% were meeting or exceeding expectations, 59% were partially meeting, and 14% were not meeting. The team agreed that this information was helpful for understanding the students' performance and for the Board. 
• The committee observed a trend of students being close to meeting expectations but not quite achieving it. Bill suggested that they could provide graphs to the board for better visualization. Jess added that this trend was not unique to their school, but was a statewide issue, indicating that the whole state was struggling with similar challenges.

Jess discussed subgroup data.

• She noted that low-income students performed better across all subjects, while non-low-income students declined in English Language Arts (ELA). The biggest gap between the two groups was observed in math. Jess also highlighted the consistent trend of the gap between low-income and non-low-income students year over year.
• Anne asked about the actual number of students and Bill gave more details about the percentage breakdown and actual number of low-income and non-low-income students. 
• Jess noted a slight decrease in the white subgroup and a greater disparity in math performance between racial subgroups, particularly a decrease in black student performance in 3rd and 8th grades. She also highlighted a positive trend of no racial disparity in lower grades and a slight improvement in math performance among students with disabilities. 
• Bill and Pam agreed that the performance of students with disabilities was a challenge, but Pam clarified that they were not over-identifying students with disabilities and were providing appropriate interventions. 
• Jess also discussed the performance of English learners and black and Latino students, who were outperforming state averages in ELA and math.

Bill and Jess discussed the district's performance in comparison to other districts in the state. 

• They noted that while they are performing on par with districts like East Longmeadow and Hamden-Wilbraham, they still have gaps to close to reach the most successful districts. They highlighted that they are the highest performing district in the state when considering districts with above 70% low-income students. They also discussed the state's accountability metrics, noting that their percentile ranking was 79, a 5-point increase from the previous year. Jess mentioned that they start working on data analysis immediately after it's released, usually around the 4th of July.

Jess discussed the adjustments made to the school's curriculum and staffing schedule based on the MCAS data. 

• She mentioned the introduction of new intervention programs, such as Phonics Boost and “The 6-minute solution”, to support students with remedial reading skills. Jess also highlighted the implementation of a math fluency approach and a year-long PD track aligned to comprehension strategies. She was optimistic that these changes would further improve student outcomes and comprehension skills.

Given timing constraints, the committee did not discuss this.

The board will be discussing scheduling at the next meeting.  If the meeting plan is agreed on, this committee will not meet again until December for a fall interim assessment report.