NAHANT — Johnson Elementary School Principal Heather Castonguay spoke during Monday night’s School Committee meeting to report on the 2024-25 MCAS scores of students in grades 3-5.
Castonguay noted that the report she wrote covers a review of scores in the areas of English Language Arts (ELA) and Math, as well as grade 5 Science Technology achievement results.
There were eight students in grade 6 that were assessed but were not included in the report. This was in accordance with the reporting guidelines from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). The guidelines states that “DESE suppresses results for any grade level, subgroup, or demographic category with fewer than 10 students to protect individual confidentiality under federal privacy laws.”
The first category in Castonguay’s report was on the ELA MCAS.
Grade 3 outperformed the state average in spring 2025 with 47% either meeting or exceeding the expectations compared to 43% statewide, which she said was “a positive 4-point differential.” Grade 4 also beat the state average, with 42% having met or exceeded the expectations in comparison to 40% statewide, which resulted in a 2-point differential.
Castonguay added that in Grade 5, only 23% of students met or exceeded expectations compared to 38% statewide. This resulted in a negative-15-point differential. The Grade 5 performance gap, she explained, “indicated a need for further data disaggregation” to improve their strategies going forward.
For Math, Grade 3 was ultimately outperformed by the state average, as only 20% of students met or exceeded expectations compared to the 44% statewide average. This also resulted in a negative differential of 24 points.
Grade 4 had also performed under the state average, as 38% of students met or exceeded the expectations compared to the 43% statewide average. This resulted in a 5-point differential. She noted that it was the “narrowest gap across grades.”
Only 23% of students throughout Grade 5 met or exceeded the expectations of the 40% statewide average, which also caused a negative-17-point differential.
In order to work toward closing those gaps, the district adopted Eureka Square, a different math program, for grades pre-K to 6, which started this year.
Within the category of Science and Technology/Engineering, Castonguay reported that 58% of students met or exceeded expectations of the 46% statewide average.
She cited the “hands-on and inquiry-based instruction” and the “integration of science practices within the curriculum” along with the added “STEM Enrichment” class as contributors to the high performance in that category.
Other plans to close the gaps, as Castonguay explained it, was for the school to strengthen the integration of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and Social Emotional Learning (SEL), as well as the 5th and 6th grade teacher exploring EL Education Language Arts as a possible high-quality instructional material, which is a “comprehensive, research informed, core language arts program that engages students and teachers through compelling, real-world content,” according to eleducation.org.
Similar suggestions Castonguay made include increasing the School Interventionist position from part-time to full-time in order to “provide consistent, targeted, academic support” and adding an instructional coach that would assist teachers with lesson plans that implement things like high-quality instructional materials and data analysis.
Superintendent of Schools Rob Liebow noted during the presentation that making the change from “everyday math” to Eureka Squared was “critical.”
“It was exactly the right move. It was teacher-driven, teacher-supported, and everyday math had been around for a little while, but it isn’t under the same kind of legs that Eureka Squared is,” Liebow said. “We made a really smart move, I think.”
Liebow noted the choice to pivot to Eureka Squared came from the Curriculum and Professional Development Committee, which featured two teachers as representatives and former Principal Kevin Andrews.
“It was a coordinated look at what was the best possible program in math because the scores in prior years haven’t been that strong,” Liebow said. “Making that change was a huge deal, and teachers were partners in that… I think that was really critical.”
