Montgomery Board of Education Spars Over Student “Growth Data,” Transparency and Expert Input

Nicholas Mistretta

Closing discussion highlights deep division over data access, curriculum oversight and outreach to college faculty

MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP — A routine November 18 Board of Education meeting ended with a pointed, and at times tense, exchange over student performance data, enrollment information and how the district responded to criticism from college faculty about high school course pathways.

The discussion was led by board member Dr. Wang, who raised two issues during the board’s closing comments: the board’s access to detailed student “growth data,” and the way district administrators handled feedback from higher-education faculty about Montgomery’s STEM course sequencing.

Disagreement Over “Growth Data” and Board Access

Dr. Wang began by revisiting earlier conversations about student growth data — information that tracks how much individual students or cohorts improve over time, rather than just measuring how many reach a particular proficiency level on an annual state test. She noted that New Jersey now requires districts to administer an early literacy screener in grades K–3 multiple times each year, and that Montgomery also uses local benchmark assessments such as Renaissance Star in English language arts and math three times a year. “We know frequency creates utility,” she said, arguing that once-a-year testing provides only a snapshot, not a meaningful measure of progress. “Assessing once is symbolism. Assessing twice is impact… Assessing once sends a signal that we care about something. Assessing twice means not only we care about something but we also care about improving something.” Dr. Wang framed growth measures as “foundational to accountability and continuous improvement,” and said the board needs access to this data to evaluate whether students at different performance levels — low, medium and high — are being effectively challenged and supported. She told colleagues that, despite being told administrators routinely review local growth data for decision-making, her formal requests for the results of that analysis had not been fulfilled. “I first asked for this information earlier this year to support the budget inquiries and evidence-based decision-making,” she said, adding that she had repeated the request “multiple times and multiple meetings” without receiving the data.

Dr. Wang said a similar pattern had occurred with her request for year-over-year counts of students who withdraw from the district, which she described as an “essential data point” for understanding enrollment trends and budget impact. “The school district has never provided it,” she told the board. “When data that is used by administrators and repeatedly withheld from the board, it raises some concerns,” she said. “How can we as a board fulfill our oversight responsibilities without accessing the information that guides the school district’s decisions?”

Board Members Push Back

Several board members responded, agreeing on the importance of asking questions but differing sharply on what data the board needs and what has already been provided. Member Jernigan said the discussion resonated because the board is “being asked to vote on instructional progress, curriculum and investments,” and therefore “it’s fair that we ask questions on the results of items that we’re investing in collectively as board members and taxpayers.” Member Dowling, however, questioned the premise that the district lacked evidence of improvement. “What I’m still stuck on is where is the data that shows that we are not showing improvement in our student academic progress. That’s what I don’t understand,” noting that the board has repeatedly been shown year-over-year state assessment results in English language arts, math and science demonstrating student growth. Dr. Wang responded that she was not asking for proof the district was failing, but for more detailed information to guide “how we can continue improving.”

The exchange grew more pointed when Dr. Wang referenced an earlier data point indicating that a substantial portion of third graders were not reading at the state’s grade-level benchmark. She said this had led community members to ask “why half of third grader cannot read,” adding that growth data might show those students were still making progress. Member Spina immediately objected, saying, “You just made an assumption statement there that half of our third graders can’t read. I don’t think that is accurate,” and clarifying that the concern related to state benchmark levels, not basic literacy. She emphasized that detailed data requests from a single trustee do not automatically become board directives. “In order for you to ask for specific data as you continue to do, all nine of us need to come together and say that we as a board want [the administration] to provide that to us,” the member said. “One board member does not dictate what is presented to the full board and to the public.” She also praised the administration for presentations already delivered this fall, including a recent enrollment report and an academic achievement update.

Debate Over Student Withdrawals and Why Families Leave

The board also differed on whether the district should track and report the number — and reasons — for students withdrawing from Montgomery schools. Dr. Wang said she wanted clearer year-over-year numbers on withdrawals and what the district might “learn from it.” Other board members and administrators cautioned against drawing conclusions from such data. Member Harris noted that families move in and out of town for many reasons, including job changes and personal circumstances, calling it “a really tricky thing to try to pinpoint.” Business Administrator Italiano asked directly about the intent behind the question: “Are you trying to say that the achievement isn’t good here? Are you trying to say it’s the teachers, the education, the extracurricular?” Member Spina stressed that, as a public school district, Montgomery educates all students who reside in the township, and typically does not ask families why they are leaving when they move or transfer. “We don’t ask the reason why. So we don’t have that data,” Member Dowling stated, noting that while the district may know where records are sent when a student transfers, that does not mean it knows or tracks the family’s motivations.

Revisiting College Expectations and Contact with Universities

In a second major point of her remarks, Dr. Wang returned to a controversy from the board’s September meeting.

At that earlier session, she had shared policy recommendations and comments from several higher-education faculty members, whose expertise spans business, medical school, psychology, special education and STEM fields, regarding college expectations and STEM course pathways at Montgomery High School. Dr. Wang said that in response, administrators had publicly stated several times that those faculty members had “apologized” — a characterization she disputed. “As a board member I did not receive any apology letter, emails or communication from any of these faculty members nor from any university officials,” she said. “I do not know who they refer to in the statement or what exactly she claims they apologized for.” She said it “appears that an attempt was made to undermine or invalidate the recommendations” of the higher-ed experts, and criticized the decision to contact their employers. “Reaching out to the employers and suggesting that their input was somehow inappropriate does not align with responsible board leadership,” she said. Dr. Wang went on to thank the faculty members who, she said, “generously shared their insights on what an effective STEM pathway can look like and what expectations they have for incoming freshmen,” as well as Montgomery teachers who had previously described feeling unprepared for the implementation of a past curriculum initiative. She argued that curriculum discussions and approvals should occur with enough lead time — citing guidance from the New Jersey School Boards Association that such decisions typically happen in May — so teachers and administrators can be fully prepared for the following school year. “When the board is asked to approve a curriculum without assessing the necessary information, it puts the board in the position of voting in the dark,” she said. “Meaningful oversight requires timely information.” Dr. Wang closed by urging that the board’s vision be “rooted in evidence, shaped by expert insight and centered on the long-term success of our students,” adding, “Dismissing or discrediting the very experts who help define college readiness is not leadership.” After she finished, Member Spina thanked her “for her commentary” and initially moved to adjourn. 

Administrators’ Outreach Defended; Board “Agrees to Disagree”

Superintendent McLoughlin asked if anyone was going to correct the misinformation being commented on. Spina said she does not recall hearing some of the staff comments Dr. Wang described and would need to “go back and relisten” to confirm. She went on to clarify the district’s outreach to universities following the September emails. According to that explanation, district administrators contacted the institutions to ask whether the universities themselves had concerns about Montgomery’s pathways. The universities replied that the professors were not speaking on behalf of their institutions and that the institutions did not have an issue with the district’s pathways. “I just want to go on the record saying, no one is being called out,” Superintendent McLoughlin said, adding that the goal was to “keep our relationship up with that school.” Business Administrator Italiano said the superintendent’s outreach is viewed as appropriate due diligence, given that the faculty had used their institutional email addresses.

Dr. Wang said she disagreed with that interpretation. Italiano responded, “We’re going to agree to disagree on that conversation”.

Photo Credit: Nicholas Mistretta/Headlinenewsmontgomery.com