Good evening. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to present tonight. The following presentation includes the NJSLA access and DM state assessment results for the spring of 2025 for the elementary, middle, and high school.
Although we have previously presented the results from the high school's fall 2024 block, we have included some of that information for comparison. presentation will include a large amount of data. After identifying what data is represented in each slide, we will spend
some time at the end identifying some successes, areas of growth, and interventions. We will also indicate our next steps. While we all can agree that results of a standardized test are not the full picture of a student's education, it is important to review
results to assess strengths and areas for improvement. In addition, it's useful to notice trends and scores to see if our programs are moving student achievement in the right direction. Data from state testing is used as one measure within the context of multiple
measures. The following slides will capture student performance on the NJSLA access and DM assessments during the 2425 school year. Students took the NJSLA in English language arts and literacy in grades 3 through 9. Students
took the NJSLA mathematics in grades 3 through 8 and in the courses algebra 1, algebra 2, and geometry. Multilingual learners in grades K to 12 took the access test. And special education students with intellectual disabilities
in math, ELA, and science are administered the dynamic learning map, which is referred to as the DM. Please keep in mind that data needs to be interpreted carefully. Variables to consider are that this is the fourth administration of the NJSLA since not
administering the test during COVID years 2020 and 2021. In addition, there's no longer district factor groups or peer schools for comparison. The NJSLA is a snapshot that provides information about a student at one
particular time. We are committed to using multiple measures to assess student progress, skill, and standard attainment. As we begin to unpack this data, we will look closely at the level of all students to see what types of changes need to be made to our
curriculum, instructional practices, and tiered system of supports. As a reminder, this slide demonstrates the five performance levels of NJSLA, which delineates the knowledge, skills, and practices that students demonstrate.
Starting at the far left, level one in red means that a student did not yet meet expectations. Level two in orange is partially met expectations. Level three means that students approached expectations. Level four means that students met
expectations. And finally, level five represents that students exceeded expectations. In order to determine the percentage of students meeting or exceeding expectations, we add the level four and five results together for a total percentage of students meeting or exceeding.
In addition, levels four and five also indicate that a high school student who has met or exceeded expectations is considered college and career ready. A CCR determination means at participating colleges and universities, students can
enter their freshman year without having to take remedial courses. Let's begin with the 2425 summary of results. In section one, we are reporting a district analysis. In section two, we filter the data down to a demographic
analysis. Following that, we will report the access test results, which were originally reported in August. Then we move on to section four, which looks at the dynamic learning map results. And finally, we end with section five, which includes our reflections and next steps,
district analysis. Let's begin with English language arts. This slide represents grade levels 3 through 9 and the percentage of students who tested at each grade level. In order to determine the percentage of students
who met or exceeded expectations in 2025, look at level four and five under the 2025 columns. For example, in grade 5, 42.4% of students earned a level four and 6.8%
scored a level five. The total percentage of grade 5 students who met or exceeded expectations was 49.2%. The data charts in this style are provided from link. The bar graphs that follow are based upon the data in our
Pearson reports. You may notice a difference of a tenth of a point for some categories between the Pearson and Lincolnit data. This is due to how Lincoln and Pearson round the numbers. This slide compares district performance to state performance. For
example, if we look at grade 5, we see that 49% of fifth graders met or exceeded expectations in ELA in the district, while 52.8% of fifth graders met or exceeded expectations in the
state. In this case, we performed 3.8% lower than the state. This slide represents the average score of students in each grade level with the state average score. Continuing with fifth grade as our example, you can see that the average score of our fifth
grade students was 746, which is four points lower than the state average of 750. Although grade 5 has not met the state average, they are competitive and in range of the state. In middle school ELA,
46.4%. 4% of eighth graders met or exceeded expectations compared to 57.1% for the state. This slide compares average scores by grade level to the state average scores for middle school ELA. For example, keeping with 8th grade
as our example, you can see that average score was 743 while the state average score was 755. At the high school, the NJSLA was administered in the fall and spring. These scores need to be broken out separately because the sample size for
both the district and the state differ from fall to spring, which is why we cannot average the scores together. Please note the fall and JSLA results were previously presented to the board earlier in the year, but we are including them again to notice any
changes or growth. For example, if we look at the fall administration, we see that 92 students took the NJSLA and 54.3% of those students met or exceeded expectations. This exceeds the state average of 52.2%.
In the spring, our 114 students who took the test, 30.7% met or exceeded expectations compared to 49.9% of the state. Continuing with grade nine, we see that the fall administration outperformed the state in
terms of average score with the high school scoring 751 and the state scoring 749. In the spring, the state averaged 745 and our 9th grade students averaged 726.
When comparing growth from year to year, we are often comparing different cohorts of students. An interesting lens to examine the data is to trace how the same cohort of students did over multiple years. For example, the class of 2029 is currently in 9th grade. This
slide tracks the percentage of students in this cohort who met or exceeded expectations from 2023 to 2025. In sixth grade, this group of students had 32.6% meeting and exceeding. In seventh grade,
they had 40.1% of students meeting or exceeding. In 8th grade, they had 46.4% of students meeting or exceeding. This means from 2023 to 2025, this cohort of students had an increase of 13.8%
of students meeting or exceeding. Similarly, we can compare three years for the class of 2032 who are currently in sixth grade. In grade three, they had 35.9% of students meeting or exceeding. In
grade four, they had 40.5% of students meeting or exceeding. And in grade 5, they had 49% of students meeting or exceeding. From 2023 to 2025, the cohort had a 13.1% increase in the number of students who
met or exceeded expectations. We will now review how our students performed on the NJSLA in mathematics. This slide represents grade levels 3 to 9 and students taking algebra 1, algebra
2, and geometry. Again, in order to determine the percentage of students who met or exceeded expectations in 2025, look at levels four and five under the 2025 columns. For example, in grade 8 honors algebra at the middle school,
84.6% of students earned a level four and 15.4% 4% score a level five. The total number of grade 8 students who met or exceeded expectations in middle school honors algebra was 100%.
In grade 7 mathematics, 32.7% earned a level four and 4.3% earned a level five. This means 37.2% met or exceeded expectations. Link indicates that this is a 12.8% 8%
increase from the previous year. This slide compares our elementary students to those in the state in terms of percent who met or exceeded expectations. For example, in grade 4, 34.6% of students met or exceeded expectations
compared to the 46.7% of the state. This slide compares the average scores for our elementary students to the state average scores. Continuing with grade four as our example, the district average was 733 and the state average
score was 746. Looking at middle school math, the state percentage of students meeting or exceeding is 3.9% higher than the district in grade six. In grade 7, the district is approaching the state average with only a 1.7%
discrepancy. In grade 8 math, which does not include the honors algebra students, the district significantly outperformed the state. The district percentage was 29.1 while the state average was 20.7. This means we are averaging 8.4% above
the state average in grade 8 math. Middle school algebra continues to demonstrate unmatched success. Our middle school algebra students had 100% meeting or exceeding expectations. The state average for algebra, which includes all grade levels who take the
assessment, was 37.9%. This slide compares the middle school math average scores to the state. In grade six, our average math score is approaching the state average. In grade six, our average math score is
approaching the state average with a 736 to the state 740. In grade seven, our students tied the state average score. And in grades eight and middle school algebra, our students average higher than the state. When
tracking students in middle school math, we cannot factor in grade 8 since the students split between grade 8 math and algebra. However, we can look at last year's 7th graders, the class of 2030, and trace their progress from sixth
grade in 2324 to 7th grade in 2425. This cohort of students increased 13.6% 6% of students meeting and exceeding in grade 7. Looking at our elementary math progression is not as promising as the
elementary ELA or the middle school math. Our current grade six students, the class of 2032, had 43.8% meeting and exceeding in 22 23 when they were in grade three. In grades four and
five, that percentage declined a little over 10%. Last year and this year, the elementary has been focusing on conceptual mathematical understanding. We explored programs and provided enhanced training on I Ready and have provided professional development and coaching
from a mathematics expert. In addition, teachers have implemented impact cycles. And this year, the elementary schools have dedicated data teams to track individual student progress. We will now review how our students performed on the
NJSLA in science. The NJSLA science was administered to all students in grade 5, 8, and 11. Unlike ELA and math, which have five proficiency levels, science has four proficiency levels. Advanced
proficient is a four, proficient is a three, near proficient is a two, and below proficient is a one. In grade 5, for example, 15.7% of students tested at a level three, and 4% of students earned
a level four, which adds up to 19.7% of students in grade 5 proficient or advanced proficient. Scores in grades five, 8, and 11 all saw a slight decrease in science. While the scores are statistically similar to last year's
scores, we are looking to increase and not remain the same. The middle school has been adopting open sed incorporate hands-on inquiry based instruction. And at the high school, teachers have been incorporating inner orbit, which presents questions similar in style to
the NJSLA science. Now we will move on to the demographic analysis. This chart displays the results of the spring ELA administration by race. It is broken down by elementary, middle school, high school, and there's an all grades section.
This allows us to interpret if there are trends impacting a specific subgroup. In all grades, we had 44 Asian students take the ELA assessment with 77.3% of those students meeting or exceeding
expectations. In addition, 104 black students tested with 29.8% meeting or exceeding. Continuing on, there were 464 Hispanic students tested with 33.6% meeting or exceeding. There were 77
multiple race students who took the test with 40.3% meeting or exceeding. And finally, there were 629 white students who tested with 50.4% of students meeting or exceeding expectations. This slide is just a visual
representation of the demographic data on the previous chart. This chart displays the results of the spring math administration by race. Similarly, it is broken down by elementary, middle, and high school and all grades. In addition, it allows us to interpret
if there are trends impacting a specific subgroup. Looking at all grades, we had 60 Asian students take the math assessment with 60% meeting or exceeding expectations. In addition, 140 black students tested with 15% meeting or exceeding
expectations. Continuing on, there were 618 Hispanic students tested with 20.5% meeting or exceeding expectations. We had 95 multiple race students who took the test with 26.3% meeting or exceeding expectations. And
finally, there were 793 white students who tested with 36% of students meeting or exceeding expectations. This is a visual representation of the demographic information in the previous chart. This chart displays the results of the spring science administration by
race. Once again, we are broken down into elementary, middle, high school, and all grades. And we are using this data to interpret if there are trends impacting any specific subgroups. Looking at all grades, we had 25 Asian students take the science assessment
with 28% proficient or advanced proficient. In addition, 61 black students tested with 11.5% proficient or advanced proficient. Continuing on, there were 209 Hispanic students tested with 10.5% proficient or
advanced proficient. Looking at our 29 multiple race students, we have 17.2%. Proficient or advanced proficient. And finally, we had 312 white students who
tested with 22.8% 8% proficient or advanced proficient. Once again, this chart just represents the data from the previous slide in a visual form. The information on this slide represents NJSLA data by gender. According to the
performance across all grades, 632 females tested with 47.4% meeting or exceeding expectations. 691 males tested with 39% meeting or exceeding expectations.
And once again, we have a visual representation of the data from the chart. The information on this slide represents NJSLA math data by gender. According to the performance across all grades, 812 females tested with 27.6%
meeting or exceeding. 899 males tested with 30.2% 2% meeting or exceeding expectations. And here we have the visual representation of the gender data from the previous slide. The information on this slide represents NJSLA science
data by gender. According to the performance across all grades, 312 females tested with 15.4% meeting or exceeding and 321 males tested with 20% of males who met or exceeded expectations.
And once again we have our visual representation of that data. The information on this slide represents NJSLA English language arts data by the subgroup of program. 31.8% of students who receive free and reduced lunch met or exceeded
expectations. Students with 504 plans had 41.5% meeting or exceeding expectations and 4.3% of our multilingual learners met or exceeded expectations. In special
education, 10.7% of students met or exceeded expectations. And in general education, 57.9% met or exceeded expectations. And there's our visual representation. The information on this slide represents
NJSLA mathematics data by subgroup program. 20% of students who receive free and reduced lunch met or exceeded expectations. Students with 504 plans has 30.6% meeting and exceeding. There were 4.2%
of our multilingual learners who met or exceeded expectations. And in special education, 8% of students met or exceeded expectations. In general education, 39.1% of students met or exceeded expectations.
The information on this slide represents NJSLA data by the subgroup of program. 12% of students who received free and reduced lunch were proficient or advanced proficient. Students with 504 plans had 21.1%
who were proficient or advanced proficient. There were 1.9% of our multilingual learners who were proficient or advanced proficient. In special education, 2.4% of students were proficient or advanced proficient.
And in general education, 24.6% of students were proficient or advanced proficient. And once again, we have that data in a visual form. Each of our 11th grade students take the New Jersey Graduation Proficiency Assessment, which is
referred to as the NJGPA. Students must sit for and take the assessment in order for additional graduation pathways to be open to them in order to meet the graduation testing requirement. For example, if a student takes the
NJGPA and does not meet or exceed expectations, the other pathways such as PSAT, SAT, ACUPPLACER, and the appeals process are available to them because they sat for the NJGPA. If students take the NJGPA and meet or
exceed expectations, they have met the graduation testing requirement. The results of the NJGPA were presented to the board on July 23rd, 2025. A link to that presentation is included on this slide. We are including a small excerpt
of that presentation in the following slides. This graph represents the percentage of students who met the graduation cut scores in ELA over three years from both Manchester and the state. As you can see, the grade 11 students are finding great success on the NJGPA
ELA and are competitive with state averages. This graph represents the percentage of students who met the graduation cut score in math over 3 years from both Manchester and the state. While the averages in math are notably
lower than the NJ GPA for ELA, it is important to note that the state averages for math are also significantly lower than their ELA averages. The 2024 2025 access scores were reported to the board of education on August 20th, 2025.
As a reminder, multilingual students in grades K through 12 take the Access test each year. Students are tested in four domains: reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Students must earn a 4.5 or higher to
exit the program. This slide tracks access results by achievement level. Since 121 out of the 267 multilingual students in our district were in their first year in the ESL program, you will see a large
percentage of students in the entering and emerging achievement level which are represented by yellow and orange bars. The remainder of students are split amongst the expanding, bridging, and reaching achievement levels. The next
section will report the results of the dynamic learning maps, which are referred to as the DLM. The dynamic learning maps assessment is a test that measures the academic achievement of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. The test measures what a
student knows and can do at his or her academic grade level, regardless of cognitive ability. The assessment is individualized for each student based on their IEP and assesses them across a number of essential elements based on grade level
and subject area to determine their mastery of the skills. Students are assessed in ELA and math for grades 3 through 8 and grade 11. Students in grades 5, 8, and 11 are also assessed in science. We had 25 students in the
district take part in DM testing in 2425. Students are scored with four performance levels: emerging, approaching target, at target, and advanced. This slide represents the number of students achieving at each
performance level across all grades and schools in the district over the past two years. The percent above each bar is the percent of students achieving at target or advanced. This data represents the number of students achieving at each
performance level specifically in ELA across all grades over the past two years by grade level. When we look at grade 11, 75% of students met at target. This represents students understanding and
ability to apply content knowledge and skills represented by the essential elements. This data represents the number of students achieving at each performance level in mathematics across all grade levels over the past two years. When we look at grade 11 again,
75% of students met at target. This represents students understanding and ability to apply content knowledge and skills represented by the essential elements. This data represents the number of students achieving at each performance level in science across all grades over
the past two years by grade level. When we look at grade 11, 75% of students met at target. Section five, reflections on scores and next steps. Several notable achievements were
identified in the data. Grade three ELA increased the number of students meeting and exceeding by 10.3%. Grade 7 saw an increase of 5.5% in ELA and grade 8 saw an increase of 5%. In
addition, 79% of ELA students met the cut score on the NJGPA. And another achievement is from 2022 to 2025, NJPA scores in ELA increased 48.8%.
Some middle school math highlights. 100% of students met or exceeded expectations in middle school algebra. Grade 8 math saw a 5.8% increase in students meeting or exceeding. Grade seven math saw a 12.8% increase in
students meeting or exceeding. And grade six math saw a 12.5% increase in students meeting or exceeding. In high school math, algebra 2 saw the biggest increase with 12.3% more students meeting or exceeding
expectations. Geometry also saw an increase with 5.5% increase in students meeting or exceeding. And algebra scored a6 increase in students meeting or exceeding expectations.
There were some gains made in subgroup performance in ELA. The category of free and reduced lunch increased 4% more students meeting or exceeding expectations. The special ed subgroup increased 3%
more students meeting or exceeding expectations. Students with 504s increased by 2%. And multilingual learners increased by 1%. Mathematics also had some subgroup gains.
Particularly, students in the 504 subgroup increased 14% more students meeting or exceeding. Free and reduced lunch increased by 6%. And special education increased by 1%. We did have
some achievements in instruction and programming. For professional development, we enhance teacher skills through targeted training including sheltered instruction, science of reading, document-based questions which are referred to as DBQs, open
sedit, and ESL trainings. In addition, we continue to use assessment committees at both the district and building levels to disagregate and analyze data in order to improve educational outcomes. We focused
on datadriven instruction and using data to inform teaching methods and targeted interventions, particularly through the use of impact cycles. We continue to promote positive behavior and emotional growth.
We implement the New Jersey tier system of support to support diverse student needs. and we continue to focus on foundational literacy, including foundations and just words. When looking at our data, it's vital to
identify the areas most in need of improvement. For example, mathematics scores districtwide need to improve. Although all grades except grade 5 experienced an increase in the percent of students meeting or exceeding expectations, we are still not as
competitive with state averages as we should be. As a district, we increase the percentage of students meeting or exceeding by 5.5%, but we need continued focus in this area to facilitate further growth. Science scores continue to be a
concern. All levels decreased this year, but the decreases are so small that the scores are statistically similar. Since last year scores were already a focus for improvement, science scores continued to be an area in need of improvement. Overall, ELA saw a slight
increase of 2.5% in students meeting and exceeding. While grades 3, 7, and 8 saw promising improvement, other grade levels saw more modest gains or decreases. There is a focus statewide on foundational literacy. As such, we are
prioritizing that in our early years to build a strong foundation. At other levels, writing across the content areas needs to continue to be an area of focus. In terms of subgroups in both math and ELA, the subgroups of multilingual learners and special education need to
be focus areas. Their scores are below state and district averages. To enhance our math and science instruction, we've implemented the following. We're implementing a math model districtwide that focuses on active engagement and critical thinking.
In the high school, they've been trained in building thinking classrooms, which establishes high school instruction that promotes problem solving and critical thinking. At the middle school, they've been implementing open seduces instructional materials and design to
engage students in scientific practices. At the high school, they've been incorporating inner orbit, a platform that provides phenomena based assessments and scaffolding. To enhance our secondary ELA instruction, we will focus on vocabulary, including explicit
vocabulary instruction, word rules, and tiered vocabulary. We will use to personalize learning in ELA based on student data, which complements teacher instruction. There is a focus on content area literacy. For example, document-based
questions in social studies require students to analyze multiple sources and synthesize them into a response. And the middle and high school teachers have created a common language for reading and writing used across multiple disciplines. Strategies for improvement,
an intervention, as I mentioned, using for personalized learning to differentiate instruction. The continued focus on intervention practices outlined in the tiered system of supports continued to provide school level teams opportunities to analyze data including
assessment committees, department and/or grade level meetings. Assist teachers in the refinement of data conferences to analyze benchmarks and classroom data to inform instruction. The review of subgroup data to meet the needs of all learners.
identifying achievement gaps and making informed curricular decisions based on such analyzing the evidence statements from the NJSLA reports. This helps us drill down on specific skills our students may be missing. Analyzing our link benchmark
data and conferencing with students to set goals based upon such data. a focus on reading and writing in all content areas and the implementation of data teams at the elementary level. This allows us to track student progress
beyond just the benchmarks. Our next steps including data analysis plan and reflection. Um evaluating our instructional tools, instructional strategies and interventions implemented and adjust if needed. Focus on skill
groups. Focus on vocabulary instruction, including tier 2 and tier three words. Focus on foundational reading and foundational writing. Plan for enrichment and support for all students. Identify areas of professional
development. Continue to drill down data. Continue to monitor implementation of linkit and its use. vertical and horizontal articulation and support of college and career
readiness at the high school. This slide provides resources for our Manchester families, including the graduation assessment requirements, information on the dynamic learning maps and access test, and the Department of Ed sites about assessment. Thank you for your
support. Feel free to contact building administration or the curriculum department with any questions.