1 of 103

NJSLA Results:�Spring 2025

Administrations �Cliffside Park School District�October 22nd, 2025

1

2 of 103

Section 1 �Comparative Analysis�

Score Comparisons and Trends by Subject and Grade Level, Participation Numbers, and Demographics

2

3 of 103

Comparison of Cliffside Park’s �Spring 2023 to Spring 2025 NJSLA Administrations�English Language Arts - Percentages

3

Grade

Level 1 2023

Level 1 2024

Level 1 2025

Level 2 2023

Level 2 2024

Level 2 2025

Level 3 2023

Level 3 2024

Level 3 2025

Level 4 2023

Level 4 2024

Level 4 2025

Level 5 2023

Level 5 2024

Level 5 2025

Change in Level 1 and 2

2023 to 2025

Change in Level 4 and 5

2023 to 2025*

3

15.1

12.5

14.4

11.6

10

9.6

24.4

16.9

23.5

45.3

51.3

46

3.5

9.4

6.4

-2.7

+3.6

4

9.2

7.6

10

13.8

9.4

6.3

23.6

17

11.9

40.8

39.2

44.4

12.6

26.9

27.5

-6.7

+18.5

5

8.8

8.2

13.5

11.5

14.3

8.4

24.2

27.5

16.9

47.8

38.5

53.4

7.7

11.5

7.9

+1.6

+5.8

6

12.1

6.3

7.1

9.8

13.1

11.5

23.6

17.6

15.8

41.4

42.6

44.3

13.2

20.5

21.3

-3.3

+11.0

7

9.4

15.5

12.8

11

12.1

13.4

19.3

17.2

20.9

34.8

33.3

30.5

25.4

21.8

22.5

+5.8

-7.2

8

12.4

11.6

11.2

8.3

9.5

12.4

18.9

17.9

24.7

25.8

41.1

29.2

34.6

20

22.5

+2.9

-8.7

9

20.8

16.3

19.6

22.4

19

17.7

22.4

19.6

20.8

27.3

30.8

31.8

7.1

14.2

10.1

-5.9

+7.5

*Level 4 and Level 5 is an indication a student is on pace to be college and career ready.

Notes: Data shown is preliminary. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

4 of 103

Comparison of Cliffside Park’s �Achievement 2023 vs 2024 vs 2025 NJSLA Administrations�English Language Arts - Percentages

4

5 of 103

Comparison of Cliffside Park vs New Jersey�Spring 2023 to Spring 2025 NJSLA Administrations�English Language Arts – Percentage Changes

5

Grade

Levels 1 & 2

District

Trend

Levels 1 & 2

District

Levels 1 & 2

State

Trend

Levels 1 & 2

State

Level 3

District

Trend

Level 3

District

Level 3

State

Trend

Level 3

State

Levels 4 & 5

District Trend

Levels 4 & 5

District

Levels 4 & 5

State

Trend

Levels 4 & 5

State

3

−

2.7%

−

0.1%

−

0.9%

−

2.4%

+

3.6%

+

2.9%

4

−

6.7%

−

0.6%

−

11.7%

−

1.6%

+

18.5%

+

2.2%

5

+

1.6%

+

0.1%

−

7.3%

+

0.5%

+

5.8%

−

0.5%

6

−

3.3%

−

3.1%

−

7.8%

−

4.0%

+

11.0%

+

7.1%

7

+

5.8%

−

0.9%

+

1.6%

−

0.4%

−

7.2%

+

1.3%

8

+

2.9%

+

0.3%

+

5.8%

−

2.0%

−

8.7%

+

1.8%

9

−

5.9%

+

1.1%

−

1.6%

+

1.1%

+

7.5%

−

2.1%

The plus sign (+) indicates an increase of the % change from the previous year where a minus sign (-) shows a decrease of the % change from the previous year.

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

​

6 of 103

Comparison of Cliffside Park’s �Spring 2025 NJSLA Administrations�English Language Arts to New Jersey - Percentages

6

Grade

Level 1, District

Level 1, State

Level 2, District

Level 2, State

Level 3, District

Level 3, State

Level 4, District

Level 4, State

Level 5, District

Level 5, State

3

14.4

19.0

9.6

16.0

23.5

20.1

46.0

37.0

6.4

7.9

4

10.0

13.6

6.3

13.2

11.9

19.7

44.4

37.8

27.5

15.8

5

13.5

13.2

8.4

13.3

16.9

20.8

53.4

41.4

7.9

11.3

6

7.1

10.6

11.5

12.7

15.8

20.6

44.3

41.4

21.3

14.7

7

12.8

12.3

13.4

11.2

20.9

19.5

30.5

31.9

22.5

25.1

8

11.2

12.9

12.4

11.9

24.7

18.1

29.2

36.4

22.5

20.7

9

19.6

17

17.7

13.9

20.8

19.3

31.8

34.9

10.1

15.0

​

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

7 of 103

Cliffside Park School District �Spring 2025 NJSLA Administrations�English Language Arts Participation Rates

7

Grade Level

Eligible Test Takers

Valid Scores

Participation Rates

3

195

187

95.9%

4

169

160

94.7%

5

184

178

96.7%

6

189

183

96.8%

7

198

187

94.4%

8

190

178

93.7%

9

352

327

92.9%

Total

1,477

1,400

94.8%

*First year Multilingual Learners are not required to take the NJSLA ELA test. This accounts for lower participation in ELA vs mathematics.

8 of 103

Comparison of Cliffside Park’s �Number of Students Tested �Spring 2024 & Spring 2025 NJSLA Administrations�English Language Arts

8

Grade

Students Tested 2024

Students Tested 2025

Difference between number of students tested in 2023 and 2024

3

160

187

+27

4

171

160

-11

5

182

178

-4

6

176

183

+7

7

174

187

+13

8

190

178

-12

9

331

327

-4

Total

1,384

1,400

+16

Note: “Students Tested” represents individual valid test scores for English Language Arts.

9 of 103

Cliffside Park School District�2025 Spring Administration

ELA Performance of Economically Disadvantaged Subgroup

10 of 103

  • African American Subgroup N<10 in all grade levels, scores not shown.
  • Asian Subgroup grade levels where N<10 are not reported.

Cliffside Park School District�2025 Spring Administration

ELA Performance of Race Subgroups

11 of 103

  • Note: Students with a 504 were not included in the IEP population.

​

Cliffside Park School District�2025 Spring Administration

ELA Performance of IEP Subgroup

12 of 103

  • Note: Students tested are in the second or third year of ML education program. Typically many students are not classified as MLs by the time they reach their fourth academic year. Therefore this does not include former MLs.

Cliffside Park School District�2025 Spring Administration

ELA Performance of ML Subgroup

13 of 103

Comparison of Cliffside Park’s�Spring 2023 to Spring 2025 NJSLA Administrations�Mathematics - Percentages

13

Grade

Level 1 2023

Level 1 2024

Level 1 2025

Level 2 2023

Level 2 2024

Level 2 2025

Level 3 2023

Level 3 2024

Level 3 2025

Level 4 2023

Level 4 2024

Level 4 2025

Level 5 2023

Level 5 2024

Level 5 2025

Change in Level 1 and 2

2023 to 2025

Change in Level 4 and 5

2023 to 2025*

3

6.8

4.8

6.3

12.5

12

8.3

23.3

22.9

22.4

44.3

38.6

44.3

13.1

21.7

18.8

-4.7

+5.7

4

4.9

9.7

7.3

14.8

14.8

9.8

28

29

21.3

46.7

40.3

44.5

5.5

6.3

17.1

-2.6

+9.4

5

13.8

11.6

5.9

16.5

25.3

20

34

27.4

33

26.1

30

35.1

9.6

5.8

5.9

-4.4

+5.3

6

12.8

7.1

8.2

25.1

23.4

22.8

33.5

37

27.7

22.9

27.2

34.2

5.6

5.4

7.1

-6.9

+12.8

7

13.4

8.9

8.5

21.4

28.5

21.7

38.5

30.2

37

25.1

26.8

28.6

1.6

5.6

4.2

-4.6

+6.1

8*

31.7

22

26.2

20.6

23.6

20.7

22.6

33

23.2

22.6

19.8

29.3

2.5

1.6

0.6

-5.4

+4.8

ALG I*

24.8

19.3

18.8

32

30.7

31.9

24.8

27.9

30.3

13.8

21.7

17.2

4.7

0.3

1.8

-6.1

+0.5

ALG II

7.1

18.5

0

25

29.6

10

21.4

25.9

20

42.9

25.9

66.7

3.6

0

0

-22.1

+20.2

*Some students in grade 8 participated in the NJSLA Algebra I assessment in place of the 8th grade math assessment. The NJSLA Math 8 outcomes are not representative of grade 8 performance as a whole. Algebra I performance includes 8th grade scores. Geometry N<10, thus not included.

Notes: Data shown is preliminary. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. ALG 1 Is Algebra 1; GEO is Geometry; ALG II is Algebra 2.

14 of 103

Comparison of Cliffside Park’s �Achievement 2023 vs 2024 vs 2025 NJSLA Administrations�Mathematics - Percentages

14

15 of 103

Comparison of Cliffside Park vs New Jersey�Spring 2023 to Spring 2025 NJSLA Administrations�Mathematics – Percentage Changes

15

Grade

Levels 1 & 2

District

Trend

Levels 1 & 2

District

Levels 1 & 2

State

Trend

Levels 1 & 2

State

Level 3

District

Trend

Level 3

District

Level 3

State

Trend

Level 3

State

Levels 4 & 5

District Trend

Levels 4 & 5

District

Levels 4 & 5

State

Trend

Levels 4 & 5

State

3

−

4.7

−

2.7

−

0.9

−

1.0

+

5.7

+

3.9

4

−

2.6

−

2.2

−

6.7

−

0.1

+

9.4

+

2.4

5

−

4.4

−

5.0

−

1.0

+

0.8

+

5.3

+

4.1

6

−

6.9

−

3.4

−

5.8

−

2.1

+

12.8

+

5.5

7

−

4.6

−

4.7

−

1.5

−

0.2

+

6.1

+

5.0

8*

−

5.4

−

4.0

+

0.6

+

1.1

+

4.8

+

2.9

Algebra I*

−

6.1

−

2.9

+

5.5

+

0.1

+

0.5

+

2.9

Algebra II

−

22.1

−

13.4

−

1.4

−

5.4

+

20.2

+

18.8

*Some students in grade 8 participated in the NJSLA Algebra I assessment in place of the 8th grade math assessment. The NJSLA Math 8 outcomes are not representative of grade 8 performance as a whole. Algebra I performance includes 8th grade scores. Geometry N<10, thus not included.

- The plus sign (+) indicates an increase of the % change from the previous year where a minus sign (-) shows a decrease of the % change from the previous year.

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

​

16 of 103

Comparison of Cliffside Park’s �Spring 2025 NJSLA Administrations�Mathematics to New Jersey - Percentages

16

Grade

Level 1, District

Level 1, State

Level 2, District

Level 2, State

Level 3, District

Level 3, State

Level 4, District

Level 4, State

Level 5, District

Level 5, State

3

6.3

10.3

8.3

16.2

22.4

23.8

44.3

37.0

18.8

12.8

4

7.3

9.4

9.8

19.3

21.3

24.6

44.5

39.0

17.1

7.7

5

5.9

11.0

20.0

18.5

33

26.3

35.1

34.1

5.9

10.1

6

8.2

11.3

22.8

22.7

27.7

26.2

34.2

31.0

7.1

8.8

7

8.5

10.3

21.7

20.5

37.0

30.5

28.6

31.6

4.2

7.2

8*

26.2

30.2

20.7

26.6

23.2

22.5

29.3

19.6

0.6

1.1

Algebra I

18.8

13.1

31.9

25.8

30.3

23.2

17.2

31.3

1.8

6.6

Algebra II

0

9.9

10.0

7.0

20.0

10.6

66.7

49.9

0

22.6

*Some students in grade 8 participated in the NJSLA Algebra I assessment in place of the 8th grade math assessment. The NJSLA Math 8 outcomes are not representative of grade 8 performance as a whole. Algebra I performance includes 8th grade scores. Geometry N<10, thus not included.

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

17 of 103

Cliffside Park School District �Spring 2025 NJSLA Administrations�Mathematics Participation Rates

17

Grade Level

Eligible Test Takers

Valid Scores

Participation Rates

3

200

192

96.0%

4

173

164

94.8%

5

191

185

96.9%

6

190

184

96.8%

7

200

189

94.5%

8*

174

164

94.3%

Algebra I**

385

383

99.4%

Algebra II**

30

30

100%

Geometry**

4

4

100%

Total

1,547

1,495

96.6%

*Some students in grade 8 participated in the Algebra I assessment in place of the 8th grade Math assessment. Thus, Math 8 percentages are not representative of grade 8 test takers.

** Students in grades 10, 11 and 12 were not included.

18 of 103

Comparison of Cliffside Park’s �Number of Students Tested�Spring 2024 & Spring 2025 NJSLA Administrations�Mathematics

18

Grade

Students Tested 2024

Students Tested 2025

Difference between number of students tested in 2018 and 2019

3

166

192

+26

4

176

164

-12

5

190

185

-5

6

184

184

0

7

179

189

+10

8*

182

164

-18

Algebra I*

290

383

+93

Algebra II**

27

30

+3

Geometry**

12

4

-8

Total

1,406

1,495

+89

*Some students in grade 8 participated in the NJSLA Algebra I assessment in place of the 8th grade math assessment. The NJSLA Math 8 outcomes are not representative of grade 8 performance as a whole. Algebra I performance includes 8th grade scores. Geometry N<10, thus not included.

** Students in grades 10, 11 and 12 were not included.

Notes: “Students Tested” represents individual valid test scores for Mathematics.

19 of 103

  • Geometry 9th Grade General Population N<10, scores not shown.

Cliffside Park School District�2025 Spring Administration

Mathematics Performance of Economically Disadvantaged Subgroup

20 of 103

  • African American Subgroup N<10 in all grade levels, scores not shown.
  • Asian Subgroup grade levels where N<10 are not reported.
  • Geometry 9th Grade General Population N<10, scores not shown.

Cliffside Park School District�2025 Spring Administration

Mathematics Performance of Race Subgroups

21 of 103

  • Note: Students with a 504 were not included in the IEP population.
  • Algebra II Subgroup N<10, scores not reported.
  • Geometry 9th Grade General Population N<10, scores not shown.

Cliffside Park School District�2025 Spring Administration

Mathematics Performance of IEP Subgroup

22 of 103

  • Note: Students tested are in the second or third year of ML education program. Therefore this does not include former MLs.
  • Algebra II Subgroup N<10, scores not reported.
  • Geometry 9th Grade General Population N<10, scores not shown.

Cliffside Park School District�2025 Spring Administration

Mathematics Performance of ML Subgroup

23 of 103

Comparison of Cliffside Park’s�Spring 2023 to Spring 2025 NJSLA Administrations�Science - Percentages

23

Grade

Level 1 2023

Level 1 2024

Level 1 2025

Level 2 2023

Level 2 2024

Level 2 2025

Level 3 2023

Level 3 2024

Level 3 2025

Level 4 2023

Level 4 2024

Level 4 2025

Change in Level 1 and 2

2023 to 2025

Change in Level 3 and 4

2023 to 2025*

5

43.9

39.7

31.9

37.4

39.2

44.3

12.8

16.4

17.8

5.9

4.8

5.9

-5.1

+5

8

45.1

39.7

38.9

37.9

48.5

43.3

11.2

9.3

12.2

5.8

2.6

5.6

-0.8

+0.8

11

54

52.9

40.1

29.8

30.6

34.5

12.3

14.4

21.5

3.9

2.2

3.9

-9.2

+9.2

Notes: Data shown is preliminary. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

24 of 103

Comparison of Cliffside Park’s �Achievement 2023 vs 2024 vs 2025 NJSLA Administrations�Science - Percentages

24

25 of 103

Comparison of Cliffside Park vs New Jersey�Spring 2023 to Spring 2025 NJSLA Administrations�Science – Percentage Changes

25

Grade

Levels 1 & 2

District

Trend

Levels 1 & 2

District

Levels 1 & 2

State

Trend

Levels 1 & 2

State

Levels 3 & 4

District Trend

Levels 3 & 4

District

Levels 3 & 4

State

Trend

Levels 3 & 4

State

3

−

5.1

−

3.3

+

5.0

+

3.3

8

−

0.8

−

0.5

+

0.8

+

0.4

11

−

9.2

−

1.6

+

9.2

+

1.4

The plus sign (+) indicates an increase of the % change from the previous year where a minus sign (-) shows a decrease of the % change from the previous year.

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

​

26 of 103

26

Grade

Level 1, District

Level 1, State

Level 2, District

Level 2, State

Level 3, District

Level 3, State

Level 4, District

Level 4, State

5

31.9

30.6

44.3

39.3

17.8

22.2

5.9

7.9

8

38.9

33.8

43.3

47.2

12.2

14.1

5.6

4.9

11

40.1

40.5

34.5

28.1

21.5

21.2

3.9

10.1

Comparison of Cliffside Park’s

Spring 2025 NJSLA Administrations

Science to New Jersey Percentages for 2024

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

27 of 103

Cliffside Park School District�Spring 2025 NJSLA Administrations�Science Participation Rates

27

Grade Level

Eligible Test Takers

Valid Scores

Participation Rates

5

191

185

96.9%

8

190

180

94.7%

11

316

307

97.2%

Total

697

672

96.4%

28 of 103

Comparison of Cliffside Park’s �Number of Students Tested�Spring 2024 & Spring 2025 NJSLA Administrations�Science

28

Grade

Students Tested 2024

Students Tested 2025

Difference between number of students tested in 2023 and 2024

5

189

185

-4

8

194

180

-14

11

278

307

+29

Total

661

672

+11

29 of 103

Cliffside Park School District�2025 Spring Administration

Science Performance of Economically Disadvantaged Subgroup

30 of 103

  • African American Subgroup N<10 in all grade levels, scores not shown.
  • Asian Subgroup grade levels where N<10 are not reported.

Cliffside Park School District�2025 Spring Administration

Science Performance of Race Subgroups

31 of 103

  • Note: Students with a 504 were not included in the IEP population.

​

Cliffside Park School District�2025 Spring Administration

Science Performance of IEP Subgroup

32 of 103

  • Note: Students tested are in the second or third year of ML education program. Typically many students are not classified as MLs by the time they reach their fourth academic year. Therefore this does not include former MLs.

Cliffside Park School District�2025 Spring Administration

Science Performance of ML Subgroup

33 of 103

Comparison of Cliffside Park and New Jersey �Spring 2023, Spring 2024, Spring 2025 NJSLA Administrations�3rd Grade Percentages

33

34 of 103

Comparison of Cliffside Park and New Jersey �Spring 2023, Spring 2024, Spring 2025 NJSLA Administrations�4th Grade Percentages

34

35 of 103

Comparison of Cliffside Park and New Jersey �Spring 2023, Spring 2024, Spring 2025 NJSLA Administrations�5th Grade Percentages

35

36 of 103

Comparison of Cliffside Park and New Jersey �Spring 2023, Spring 2024, Spring 2025 NJSLA Administrations�6th Grade Percentages

36

37 of 103

Comparison of Cliffside Park and New Jersey �Spring 2023, Spring 2024, Spring 2025 NJSLA Administrations�7th Grade Percentages

37

38 of 103

Comparison of Cliffside Park and New Jersey �Spring 2023, Spring 2024, Spring 2025 NJSLA Administrations�8th Grade Percentages

38

39 of 103

Comparison of Cliffside Park and New Jersey �Spring 2023, Spring 2024, Spring 2025 NJSLA Administrations�9th Grade ELA & 11th Grade Science Percentages

39

40 of 103

Comparison of Cliffside Park and New Jersey �Spring 2023, Spring 2024, Spring 2025 NJSLA Administrations�Algebra I, Algebra II & Geometry Percentages

40

41 of 103

Section 2 �District Analysis�

Breakdown by Subject and Grade Level

41

42 of 103

Cliffside Park School District�2025 Spring NJSLA School & Grade-Level Outcomes�English Language Arts Grade 3 - Percentages�

42

ELA 3

Not Yet Meeting Expectations

(Level 1)

Partially Meeting

Expectations

(Level 2)

Approaching Expectations

(Level 3)

Meeting Expectations

(Level 4)

Exceeding Expectations

(Level 5)

% of students at Level 4 and 5

School 3

17.3%

10.7%

22.7%

44.0%

5.3%

49.3%

School 4

12.5%

9.7%

22.2%

45.8%

9.7%

55.6%

School 5

12.5%

7.5%

27.5%

50.0%

2.5%

52.5%

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

43 of 103

Cliffside Park School District�2025 Spring NJSLA School & Grade-Level Outcomes

Mathematics Grade 3 - Percentages�

43

MAT 3

Not Yet Meeting Expectations

(Level 1)

Partially Meeting

Expectations

(Level 2)

Approaching Expectations

(Level 3)

Meeting Expectations

(Level 4)

Exceeding Expectations

(Level 5)

% of students at Level 4 and 5

School 3

10.5%

6.6%

14.5%

43.4%

25.0%

68.4%

School 4

5.3%

10.5%

22.4%

42.1%

19.7%

61.8%

School 5

0.0%

7.5%

37.5%

50.0%

5.0%

55.0%

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

44 of 103

Cliffside Park School District�2025 Spring NJSLA School & Grade-Level Outcomes�English Language Arts Grade 4 - Percentages�

44

ELA 4

Not Yet Meeting Expectations

(Level 1)

Partially Meeting

Expectations

(Level 2)

Approaching Expectations

(Level 3)

Meeting Expectations

(Level 4)

Exceeding Expectations

(Level 5)

% of students at Level 4 and 5

School 3

14.6%

8.3%

8.3%

52.1%

16.7%

68.8%

School 4

8.9%

6.3%

11.4%

38.0%

35.4%

73.4%

School 5

6.1%

3.0%

18.2%

48.5%

24.2%

72.7%

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

45 of 103

Cliffside Park School District�2025 Spring NJSLA School & Grade-Level Outcomes

Mathematics Grade 4 - Percentages�

45

MAT 4

Not Yet Meeting Expectations

(Level 1)

Partially Meeting

Expectations

(Level 2)

Approaching Expectations

(Level 3)

Meeting Expectations

(Level 4)

Exceeding Expectations

(Level 5)

% of students at Level 4 and 5

School 3

14.3%

6.1%

14.3%

46.9%

18.4%

65.3%

School 4

4.9%

13.4%

23.2%

40.2%

18.3%

58.5%

School 5

3.0%

6.1%

27.3%

51.5%

12.1%

63.6%

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

46 of 103

Cliffside Park School District�2025 Spring NJSLA School & Grade-Level Outcomes�English Language Arts Grade 5 - Percentages�

46

ELA 5

Not Yet Meeting Expectations

(Level 1)

Partially Meeting

Expectations

(Level 2)

Approaching Expectations

(Level 3)

Meeting Expectations

(Level 4)

Exceeding Expectations

(Level 5)

% of students at Level 4 and 5

School 4

10.3%

5.1%

15.4%

62.8%

6.4%

69.2%

School 6

16.0%

11.0%

18.0%

46.0%

9.0%

55.0%

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

47 of 103

Cliffside Park School District�2025 Spring NJSLA School & Grade-Level Outcomes

Mathematics Grade 5 - Percentages�

47

MAT 5

Not Yet Meeting Expectations

(Level 1)

Partially Meeting

Expectations

(Level 2)

Approaching Expectations

(Level 3)

Meeting Expectations

(Level 4)

Exceeding Expectations

(Level 5)

% of students at Level 4 and 5

School 4

6.1%

14.6%

30.5%

40.2%

8.5%

48.8%

School 6

5.8%

24.3%

35.0%

31.1%

3.9%

35.0%

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

48 of 103

Cliffside Park School District�2025 Spring NJSLA School & Grade-Level Outcomes�Science Grade 5 - Percentages�

48

SCI 5

Below Proficient

(Level 1)

Near Proficiency

(Level 2)

Proficient

(Level 3)

Advanced Proficiency

(Level 4)

Met or Exceeded Level 3 and 4

School 4

24.4%

48.8%

19.5%

7.3%

26.8%

School 6

37.9%

40.8%

16.5%

4.9%

21.4%

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

49 of 103

Cliffside Park School District�2025 Spring NJSLA School & Grade-Level Outcomes�English Language Arts Grade 6 - Percentages�

49

ELA 6

Not Yet Meeting Expectations

(Level 1)

Partially Meeting

Expectations

(Level 2)

Approaching Expectations

(Level 3)

Meeting Expectations

(Level 4)

Exceeding Expectations

(Level 5)

% of students at Level 4 and 5

School 6

7.1%

11.5%

15.8%

44.3%

21.3%

65.6%

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

50 of 103

Cliffside Park School District�2025 Spring NJSLA School & Grade-Level Outcomes

Mathematics Grade 6 - Percentages�

50

MAT 6

Not Yet Meeting Expectations

(Level 1)

Partially Meeting

Expectations

(Level 2)

Approaching Expectations

(Level 3)

Meeting Expectations

(Level 4)

Exceeding Expectations

(Level 5)

% of students at Level 4 and 5

School 6

8.2%

22.8%

27.7%

34.2%

7.1%

41.3%

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

51 of 103

Cliffside Park School District�2025 Spring NJSLA School & Grade-Level Outcomes�English Language Arts/Literacy Middle School - Percentages�

51

ELA

Not Yet Meeting Expectations

(Level 1)

Partially Meeting

Expectations

(Level 2)

Approaching Expectations

(Level 3)

Meeting Expectations

(Level 4)

Exceeding Expectations

(Level 5)

% of students at Level 4 and 5

Grade 7

12.8%

13.4%

20.9%

30.5%

22.5%

52.9%

Grade 8

11.3%

11.9%

24.9%

29.4%

22.6%

52.0%

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

52 of 103

Cliffside Park School District�2025 Spring NJSLA School & Grade-Level Outcomes�Mathematics Middle School - Percentages�

52

MATH

Not Yet Meeting Expectations

(Level 1)

Partially Meeting

Expectations

(Level 2)

Approaching Expectations

(Level 3)

Meeting Expectations

(Level 4)

Exceeding Expectations

(Level 5)

% of students at Level 4 and 5

Grade 7

8.5%

21.7%

37.0%

28.6%

4.2%

32.8%

Grade 8

26.2%

20.7%

23.2%

29.3%

0.6%

29.9%

Algebra I

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

62.5%

37.5%

100%

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

53 of 103

Cliffside Park School District�2025 Spring NJSLA School & Grade-Level Outcomes�Science Middle School - Percentages�

53

SCI 8

Below Proficient

(Level 1)

Near Proficiency

(Level 2)

Proficient

(Level 3)

Advanced Proficiency

(Level 4)

Met or Exceeded Level 3 and 4

Grade 8

39.1%

43.0%

12.3%

5.6%

17.9%

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

54 of 103

Cliffside Park School District�2025 Spring NJSLA School & Grade-Level Outcomes�English Language Arts/Literacy High School - Percentages�

54

ELA

Not Yet Meeting Expectations

(Level 1)

Partially Meeting

Expectations

(Level 2)

Approaching Expectations

(Level 3)

Meeting Expectations

(Level 4)

Exceeding Expectations

(Level 5)

% of students at Level 4 and 5

Grade 9

19.6%

17.7%

20.8%

31.8%

10.1%

41.9%

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

55 of 103

Cliffside Park School District�2025 Spring NJSLA School & Grade-Level Outcomes�Mathematics High School - Percentages�

55

MATH

Not Yet Meeting Expectations

(Level 1)

Partially Meeting

Expectations

(Level 2)

Approaching Expectations

(Level 3)

Meeting Expectations

(Level 4)

Exceeding Expectations

(Level 5)

% of students at Level 4 and 5

Alg. I

19.6%

33.2%

31.6%

15.3%

0.3%

15.5%

Alg. II*

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

66.7%

3.3%

70.0%

Geom

0%

0%

75.0%

25.0%

0.0%

25.0%

* Students in grades 11 and 12 were not included.

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

56 of 103

Cliffside Park School District�2025 Spring NJSLA School & Grade-Level Outcomes�Science High School - Percentages�

56

SCI 11

Below Proficient

(Level 1)

Near Proficiency

(Level 2)

Proficient

(Level 3)

Advanced Proficiency

(Level 4)

Met or Exceeded Level 3 and 4

Grade 11

40.1%

34.5

21.5%

3.9%

25.4%

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

57 of 103

Section 3�School Analysis

Breakdown by School, Subject, and Grade Level

57

58 of 103

Comparison of School #3 �Spring 2025 Administration�English Language Arts/Literacy to Cliffside Park’s Percentages

​

58

Grade

Level 1, School

Level 1, District

Level 2, School

Level 2,

District

Level 3, School

Level 3, District

Level 4, School

Level 4, District

Level 5, School

Level 5, District

3

17.3%

14.4%

10.7%

9.6%

22.7%

23.5%

44.0%

46.0%

5.3%

6.4%

4

14.6%

10.0%

8.3%

6.3%

8.3%

11.9%

52.1%

44.4%

16.7%

27.5%

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

59 of 103

Comparison of School #3 �Spring 2025 Administration�Mathematics to Cliffside Park’s Percentages

​

59

Grade

Level 1, School

Level 1, District

Level 2, School

Level 2,

District

Level 3, School

Level 3, District

Level 4, School

Level 4, District

Level 5, School

Level 5, District

3

10.5%

6.3%

6.6%

8.3%

14.5%

22.4%

43.4%

44.3%

25.0%

18.8%

4

14.3%

7.3%

6.1%

9.8%

14.3%

21.3%

46.9%

44.5%

18.4%

17.1%

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

60 of 103

Comparison of School #5 �Spring 2025 Administration�English Language Arts/Literacy to Cliffside Park’s Percentages

​

60

Grade

Level 1, School

Level 1, District

Level 2, School

Level 2,

District

Level 3, School

Level 3, District

Level 4, School

Level 4, District

Level 5, School

Level 5, District

3

12.5%

14.4%

7.5%

9.6%

27.5%

23.5%

50.0%

46.0%

2.5%

6.4%

4

6.1%

10.0%

3.0%

6.3%

18.2%

11.9%

48.5%

44.4%

24.2%

27.5%

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

61 of 103

Comparison of School #5 �Spring 2025 Administration�Mathematics to Cliffside Park’s Percentages

​

61

Grade

Level 1, School

Level 1, District

Level 2, School

Level 2,

District

Level 3, School

Level 3, District

Level 4, School

Level 4, District

Level 5, School

Level 5, District

3

0.0%

6.3%

7.5%

8.3%

37.5%

22.4%

50.0%

44.3%

5.0%

18.8%

4

3.0%

7.3%

6.1%

9.8%

27.3%

21.3%

51.5%

44.5%

12.1%

17.1%

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

62 of 103

Comparison of School #4 �Spring 2025 Administration�English Language Arts/Literacy to Cliffside Park’s Percentages

​

62

Grade

Level 1, School

Level 1, District

Level 2, School

Level 2,

District

Level 3, School

Level 3, District

Level 4, School

Level 4, District

Level 5, School

Level 5, District

3

12.5%

14.4%

9.7%

9.6%

22.2%

23.5%

45.8%

46.0%

9.7%

6.4%

4

8.9%

10.0%

6.3%

6.3%

11.4%

11.9%

38.0%

44.4%

35.4%

27.5%

5

10.3%

13.5%

5.1%

8.4%

15.4%

16.9%

62.8%

53.4%

6.4%

7.9%

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

63 of 103

Comparison of School #4 �Spring 2025 Administration�Mathematics to Cliffside Park’s Percentages

​

63

Grade

Level 1, School

Level 1, District

Level 2, School

Level 2,

District

Level 3, School

Level 3, District

Level 4, School

Level 4, District

Level 5, School

Level 5, District

3

5.3%

6.3%

10.5%

8.3%

22.4%

22.4%

42.1%

44.3%

19.7%

18.8%

4

4.9%

7.3%

13.4%

9.8%

23.2%

21.3%

40.2%

44.5%

18.3%

17.1%

5

6.1%

5.9%

14.6%

20.0%

30.5%

33.0%

40.2%

35.1%

8.5%

5.9%

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

64 of 103

Comparison of School #4 �Spring 2025 Administration�Science to Cliffside Park’s Percentages

​

64

Grade

Level 1, School

Level 1, District

Level 2, School

Level 2, District

Level 3, School

Level3, District

Level 4 School

Level 4, District

5

24.4%

31.9%

48.8%

44.3%

19.5%

17.8%

7.3%

5.9%

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

65 of 103

Comparison of School #6 / Middle School�Spring 2025 Administration�English Language Arts/Literacy to Cliffside Park’s Percentages

​

65

Grade

Level 1, School

Level 1, District

Level 2, School

Level 2,

District

Level 3, School

Level 3, District

Level 4, School

Level 4, District

Level 5, School

Level 5, District

5

16.0%

13.5%

11.0%

8.4%

18.0%

16.9%

46.0%

53.4%

9.0%

7.9%

6

7.1%

7.1%

11.5%

11.5%

15.8%

15.8%

44.3%

44.3%

21.3%

21.3%

7

12.8%

12.8%

13.4%

13.4%

20.9%

20.9%

30.5%

30.5%

22.5%

22.5%

8

11.3%

11.2%

11.9%

12.4%

24.9%

24.7%

29.4%

29.2%

22.6%

22.5%

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

66 of 103

Comparison of School #6 / Middle School�Spring 2025 Administration�Mathematics to Cliffside Park’s Percentages

​

66

Grade

Level 1, School

Level 1, District

Level 2, School

Level 2,

District

Level 3, School

Level 3, District

Level 4, School

Level 4, District

Level 5, School

Level 5, District

5

5.8%

5.9%

24.3%

20.0%

35.0%

33.0%

31.1%

35.1%

3.9%

5.9%

6

8.2%

8.2%

22.8%

22.8%

27.7%

27.7%

34.2%

34.2%

7.1%

7.1%

7

8.5%

8.5%

21.7%

21.7%

37.0%

37.0%

28.6%

28.6%

4.2%

4.2%

8*

25.8%

26.2%

20.9%

20.7%

23.3%

23.2%

29.4%

29.3%

0.6%

0.6%

Alg I

0.0%

18.8%

0.0%

31.9%

0.0%

30.3%

62.5%

17.2%

37.5%

1.8%

*Some students in grade 8 participated in the Algebra I assessment in place of the 8th grade Math assessment. Thus, Math 8 outcomes are not representative of grade 8 performance as a whole.

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

67 of 103

Comparison of School #6 / Middle School �Spring 2025 Administration�Science to Cliffside Park’s Percentages

​

67

Grade

Level 1, School

Level 1, District

Level 2, School

Level 2, District

Level 3, School

Level3, District

Level 4 School

Level 4, District

5

37.9%

31.9%

40.8%

44.3%

16.5%

17.8%

4.9%

5.9%

8

39.1%

38.9%

43.0%

43.3%

12.3%

12.2%

5.6%

5.6%

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

68 of 103

Comparison of High School �Spring 2025 Administration�English Language Arts/Literacy to Cliffside Park’s Percentages

​

68

Grade

Level 1, School

Level 1, District

Level 2, School

Level 2,

District

Level 3, School

Level 3, District

Level 4, School

Level 4, District

Level 5, School

Level 5, District

9

19.6%

19.6%

17.7%

17.7%

20.8%

20.8%

31.8%

31.8%

10.1%

10.1%

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

69 of 103

Comparison of High School�Spring 2025 Administration�Mathematics to Cliffside Park’s Percentages

​

69

Grade

Level 1, School

Level 1, District

Level 2, School

Level 2,

District

Level 3, School

Level 3, District

Level 4, School

Level 4, District

Level 5, School

Level 5, District

Alg I

19.6%

18.8%

33.2%

31.9%

31.6%

30.3%

15.3%

17.2%

0.3%

1.8%

Alg II

0.0%

0.0%

10.0%

10.0%

20.0%

20.0%

66.7%

66.7%

3.3%

3.3%

Geo

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

75.0%

75.0%

25.0%

25.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

​

70 of 103

Comparison of High School�Spring 2025 Administration�Science to Cliffside Park’s Percentages

​

70

Grade

Level 1, School

Level 1, District

Level 2, School

Level 2, District

Level 3, School

Level3, District

Level 4 School

Level 4, District

11

40.1%

40.1%

34.5%

34.5%

21.5%

21.5%

3.9%

3.9%

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

71 of 103

Section 4�Strategies and Interventions

Narrative

71

72 of 103

Big Picture

72

73 of 103

COVID-19's Enduring Impact on Education

While the immediate health crisis of COVID-19 has long passed, its effects on student learning and well-being continue to shape education in Cliffside Park and beyond. One of the greatest challenges during the pandemic was the lack of consistent and reliable data to monitor academic progress. School closures, disrupted routines, and canceled assessments left educators without timely benchmarks, delaying interventions and allowing learning gaps to widen. As national data from the Nation’s Report Card (NAEP) and the Education Recovery Scorecard show, academic recovery has been slow and uneven. The average U.S. student remains nearly a half-grade level behind in both math and reading compared to pre-pandemic levels, a trend that is mirrored in Cliffside Park’s results. Locally, elementary grades have shown meaningful improvement, with all grade levels performing significantly above state averages in ELA, and Grades 4, 5, and 6 beating the previous year’s scores. However, middle and high school performance has stagnated. In math, grades 3rd through 8th improved over the previous year’s scores. Grades 3, 4, 6, and 8 all beat state averages, while 5, 7, and high school math subjects missed the mark and continue to lag behind statewide levels. Although Algebra II saw impressive growth, other high school courses remain below pre-pandemic benchmarks, underscoring the uneven nature of recovery.

​

At the same time, the social and emotional impact of the pandemic continues to influence student outcomes. Many Cliffside Park students, like their peers nationwide, continue to face heightened anxiety, depression, and behavioral challenges stemming from prolonged isolation and disrupted routines. These mental health concerns often compound academic difficulties, making it clear that recovery requires a whole-child approach. The district has responded by expanding mental health supports, strengthening social-emotional learning initiatives, and reintroducing programs that foster connection and belonging through extracurricular activities and collaborative learning experiences. On the academic side, CPSD is rebuilding its data systems through diagnostic assessments, progress monitoring, and classroom-based measures, while continuing to invest in evidence-based interventions such as targeted high-impact tutoring and small-group instruction. Addressing both the academic and emotional dimensions of recovery remains a district priority. By aligning data-driven instruction with comprehensive student support, Cliffside Park is committed to ensuring that all students not only regain lost ground academically, but also develop the confidence to thrive in the years ahead.

​

​

​

73

74 of 103

Plans for Data Utilization

One of the most exciting investments we’ve made recently in the Cliffside Park School District is our partnership with Renaissance Learning, which has brought a full suite of powerful data and learning tools into our schools. While the rollout has come with a learning curve, the potential these programs bring to transform how we understand and respond to student needs is incredible.

In the past, we’ve done a great job collecting student data and using it to guide classroom instruction. But using that same information to see the bigger picture and to spot patterns across grade levels, schools, or even the whole district, has been a challenge. With tools like EduClimber, DnA, and Renaissance Star, we can now turn data into meaningful insights that drive instruction and school improvement. EduClimber brings together academic, behavioral, and attendance data to identify trends and guide interventions. Star Assessments are used during district screening windows and for progress monitoring between windows, providing reliable, standards-aligned data to measure growth and inform instruction. DnA allows us to build rigorous, standards-aligned assessments that reflect multiple NJSLA-style question types, giving teachers actionable information to strengthen curriculum and instruction across all grade levels.

We’re truly excited to see how these tools will help us strengthen teaching, learning, and student support in the months and years ahead. By making data more accessible and actionable, we’re giving our educators the power to respond to students’ needs with greater precision and confidence.

74

75 of 103

Plans for Data Utilization

The scatter plot above is a visual indicator of the relationship between the 2025 NJSLA ELA exam for our elementary schools, and the third STAR Reading testing window for the ‘24-’25 school year. The results of these showed a strong positive correlation with a correlation coefficient of 0.72. This indicates that students who performed well on the STAR Reading assessment also tended to achieve higher scores on the NJSLA ELA. The strength of this relationship confirms that the STAR Reading tool serves as a reliable predictor of student performance on state assessments, reinforcing its value as an effective measure of reading proficiency and growth throughout the year.

75

76 of 103

Testing Achievements and Narrative

  • All Cliffside Park School District elementary grades handily beat the state of New Jersey proficiency numbers in ELA.
  • Despite continued lower performance than pre-COVID in mathematics, our three-year trend from 2023 to 2025 is up in the district as a whole. 3rd, 4th, 6th, and 8th grades also beat the state in mathematics proficiency.
  • In analyzing the mathematics numbers now that we have multiple years’ worth of data, the “pandemic cohorts” continue to underperform when it comes to state testing results. These are the students that were in 2nd through 5th grades during the pandemic. Students learn the very basics of higher mathematics in those pivotal grades, and that has contributed massively to testing outcomes.
  • As proof of this you only need to look at how the ‘24-’25 3rd and 4th grade cohorts performed: they both beat the state in math. 5th and 7th underperformed vs the state, 6th beat it by 1.5%, and 8th grade beat the state by 9%, just catching up to pre-pandemic levels.
  • The results of our science tests, across all grade levels, have been consistently below state levels and need to be immediately addressed, although there has been steady improvement year over year.
  • On a happy note, we had numerous perfect NJSLA scores, including a few in student subgroups that traditionally underperform! We had a total of 19 students receive perfect scores in ELA or math, and one, Krisha Jaiswal received perfect scores in both ELA and math!

76

77 of 103

Cliffside Park School District In Pictures

77

School #3 students, families, and teachers celebrate the diversity of our wonderful community at the annual International Night.

School #4 students had an unforgettable day learning about fire safety from the wonderful folks at the Cliffside Park Fire Department!

Cliffside Park is committed to community initiatives such as “Coffee With A Cop,” a program that brings police officers and the community members they serve together, over coffee, to discuss issues and learn more about each other.

School #5 students and teachers joined Mrs. Martinotti in celebrating Constitution Day by having class delegates create a list of school rules.

78 of 103

Cliffside Park School District In Pictures

78

School #6 students learn about Newton’s Third Law of Motion using a paper football game experiment.

School #6 students participate in Day of Service by bringing goodies to the hard working men and women of CP’s finest.

Celebrated author/illustrator Rick Stromoski visited our students to encourage them to work hard and follow their dreams!

Cliffside Park High School’s Mock Trial Team defeated previously unbeaten Bogota in a fiercely contested competition.

CPHS CAAD program graduates receive an Associates Degree upon graduation thanks to their dedication and effort. Congrats!

79 of 103

Elementary Strategic Plan For Growth

  • During the September In-Service, staff participated in district-led professional development sessions centered on making data actionable, a key focus of our Strategic Plan. Teachers analyzed NJSLA Evidence Statements alongside Star Screening Window #1 data to identify targeted areas of focus by grade level and content area. These areas will guide instruction throughout the year. Using a combination of Renaissance tools, classroom resources, and targeted instruction, staff will continue to monitor student progress, adjust goals, and refine practices based on multiple data sources.
  • Cliffside Park School District continues to contract with Renaissance Learning in our efforts to better utilize data, leveraging their wide array of products and services to help diminish learning gaps in our diverse populations.
  • Renaissance STAR is the backbone of our benchmark and formative assessments.
  • Renaissance EduClimber is an integral part of our data analytics plan. The software intakes student academic data, behaviors, attendance, socio-economic status, etc., and paints a picture of the whole child, which in turn helps us make better decisions in an individual, student-centered way. This tool is also being leveraged as the main tracking tool for the I&RS process.
  • Freckle is being used as a practice tool for ELA, Math. It is adaptive, and is usable for all grades and learning levels as it aligns to the NJSLS framework.
  • Renaissance DNA is a data and assessment management system. It involves collecting, creating, reporting and analyzing formative, benchmark, and state-mandated assessments.

79

80 of 103

Elementary Strategic Plan For Growth

  • Renaissance digital libraries and adaptive texts through MyON and Lalilo provide students with engaging, leveled reading experiences that promote literacy growth. These platforms offer personalized reading opportunities, adaptive practice, and real-time data to support differentiated instruction and strengthen foundational reading skills across all grade levels.
  • Intensive support of Title I instruction through push-in and pull-out models continues. The Fountas and Pinnell LLI program has shown itself to be successful in grades K - 6th accelerating the ELA learning of our most at risk students.
  • A modified version of the LLI program has been adopted for ML students at the elementary level to help accelerate reading comprehension and skill, especially for students with interrupted formal education.
  • Highly capable ELA and math coaches offer additional support to classroom teachers on a weekly basis in our elementary schools, including BAS testing for T1 students.
  • CPSD continues to emphasize the importance of supporting the social, emotional, and behavioral well-being of all students. This year, the district has implemented SAEBRS (Social, Academic, and Emotional Behavior Risk Screener) as a Tier I universal screener, allowing staff to proactively identify students’ strengths and needs as part of our MTSS framework. MTSS training will be integral in helping teachers not only support the emotional well-being of their students, but also sustain their own. CPSD is committed to investing in this framework to strengthen support for both students and staff.

​

80

81 of 103

Middle School ELA Plan of Action

  • During the 9/30 In-Service, the MS ELA department analyzed NJSLA evidence statements and Star data to identify targeted areas of need. This work will be ongoing and revisited throughout the year to monitor progress and refine instructional focus as needed.
  • Teachers collaborated to plan strategies, align instruction, and utilize classroom resources and Renaissance tools (Star, DnA, and Freckle) to monitor progress and address identified skill gaps.
  • The department follows the district curriculum maps, making revisions, developing common assessments, and updating lessons and resources as needed to ensure alignment, rigor, equity, inclusion, and cultural responsiveness in all classrooms.
  • The teachers are also planning to have 8th Graders participate in a read aloud project that coincides with Read Across America. They will be reading to younger students.
  • To find better ways to prepare students for Research Simulation Tasks outside of testing windows, MS students will participate in a cross-curricular Climate Innovation Challenge.
  • Schoolwide and CommonLit continue to be the foundation of the ELA program for 7th and 8th. These curricula facilitate cross-curricular work and foster a love for independent reading by providing a wide array of subjects that allow students to choose what they would like to read.
  • The ELA Department has a strong partnership with the Cliffside Park Public Library, providing online books, resources, and materials to student CP Library members.

81

82 of 103

Middle School Mathematics Plan of Action

  • Renaissance assessment and analysis tools (STAR, DnA, Freckle) are already heavily leveraged to quickly identify student deficiencies, and react faster to needs.
  • In particular, STAR assessment data will be scrutinized to find patterns in student performance, and identify specific math standards that need to be reinforced prior to testing.
  • The Math Committee has reviewed the entire curriculum and the new math NJSLS have been incorporated into the curriculum.
  • Savvas enVision 2.0 curriculum continues to be used across the district. The program has seen revisions to adapt to the new math standards.
  • Freckle is an integral practice and reinforcement tool. This system feeds data into Renaissance, DnA and EduClimber, providing better and more actionable data on student progress. This tool is now also aligned directly to the NJSLS math standards, and presents their lessons in a searchable format, which allows students to practice skills in the standards they need.
  • EduClimber data visualization tools will be heavily leveraged to help guide instruction.
  • Extra help is offered daily and students are highly encouraged to attend.

82

83 of 103

High School ELA Plan of Action

  • Strengthen writing instruction and students’ capacity for analysis within informational texts, with an eye to helping with NJSLA - Science in 11th grade.
  • ELA department identified specific standards, such as citing evidence and multiple meanings of words, as a focus in open-ended responses, quizzes and tests.
  • STAR Diagnostic Assessments are being used to identify, target, and reteach areas in need of improvement, while focusing instruction on identified standards.
  • Lesson plan goals focus on student engagement and mini-lessons as part of daily instruction that ensures best practices are followed.
  • Silent reading and close reading with intent to build fluency, comprehension, analysis and increase rigor.
  • Increase in journal and free writing to promote creativity, confidence, and organization of ideas.
  • Consistent dialogue and implementation of high quality literature that engages students.
  • Diversity inventory to provide culturally relevant and meaningful texts to students, including adaptive texts within the Renaissance MyON Library.
  • Greater communication with Fairview regarding incoming freshmen is once again a focus for this year, as better insight into student deficiencies early in their high school career helps immensely with timely interventions.

83

84 of 103

High School Math Plan of Action

  • Increase proficiency rates for statewide assessments, specifically Algebra I, identified as a department goal with focused instruction on pinpointed standards.
  • STAR Diagnostic Assessments, as the backbone of our benchmarking system, will be used to identify, target, and reteach areas in need of improvement, while focusing instruction on identified standards.
  • Use of AI programs to increase teaching and learning opportunities in math.
  • Continue to create a culture of collaboration amongst subject specific teachers.
  • Increased focus on demonstrating standards proficiency, for instance, how to properly understand state assessment type questions based on subclaim.
  • Increased emphasis on academic language and subject-based vocabulary.
  • Accomodations provided for MLs, including assessments given in home language with some classes having ML in class support.
  • Increased participation in Computer Science offerings, we have 7 HTML Web-Design classes this year.
  • Greater communication with Fairview regarding incoming freshmen is once again a focus for this year, as better insight into student deficiencies early in their high school career helps immensely with timely interventions.

84

85 of 103

NJSLA - Science Narrative

​

The 2025 NJSLA Science assessment scores once again fell significantly short of expectations, with none of our grade levels surpassing state averages. Science continues to be the weakest subject among the three assessed by the NJSLA, with nearly 75% of students across all grade levels scoring below proficiency. However, there is a small light at the end of the tunnel: all three tested grades have performed better than the last two test administrations.

While these results are concerning, they underscore a key challenge: the NJSLA Science assessment heavily depends on reading comprehension and data interpretation skills, which disproportionately impact students with lower reading proficiency, particularly our entry-level Multilingual Learners (MLs), who make up a large share of the lowest-performing group.

Unlike ELA and math, science results lack evidence statements, making it difficult for staff to identify specific standards in need of support. Science instruction at the upper elementary level is also limited, often receiving only a fraction of the time devoted to ELA and math due to shared scheduling with social studies. Furthermore, because science is not a graduation requirement, it is often deprioritized by both students and staff.

To address these challenges, we’ve begun integrating science content into ELA instruction to build literacy and content knowledge simultaneously. This year, the science department will focus on developing a more cohesive, vertically aligned curriculum to bridge gaps created by multiple existing programs and improve outcomes for all students.

​

​

​

85

86 of 103

NJSLA - Science Narrative

86

87 of 103

NJSLA - Science Interventions�

  • New Jersey does not provide Evidence Statements with detailed standards breakdowns for the NJSLA Science test. Our science department will leverage the Renaissance DnA testing platform to develop unit assessments that are closely aligned with these standards. This specificity will enable us to gather valuable data to enhance our preparation for state-level assessments.
  • While the New Jersey state guidelines for recommended science curricula have been somewhat vague, OpenSciEd.org has been identified as a strong alternative for CPSD, offering greater continuity across all grade levels. If we transition away from the FOSS curriculum in elementary schools, the science department will explore additional options through a pilot group of teachers.
  • At the middle and high school levels, we currently utilize various curriculum packages, including LabAids, NJCTL, BCC, and College Board. Establishing greater coherence among these programs will be a central focus of the science department’s efforts moving forward.
  • Freckle is an integral practice and reinforcement tool in ELA and math, providing better and more actionable data on student progress. The science department wants to explore the possibility of purchasing a license to expand this tool into science classes, at least in the tested grades.
  • The science department aims to integrate more mathematics standards into science lessons, fostering a stronger connection between the two subjects. The practical application of mathematical skills will enhance analytical and problem-solving abilities, improving testing outcomes.
  • The science department is eager to discuss the discrepancy in resource availability for science, in comparison to math and ELA, particularly when it comes to interventions at the student level. Science needs to receive the same level of attention as the major subjects, as it is now also tested at the state level.

87

88 of 103

Narrative Explaining the WIDA ACCESS 2.0 for MLs Results

The NJDOE proposed a model to identify English Learner Proficiency (ELP) growth targets for English learners. Equal interval increases should occur each year so that all English learners meet proficiency within five years of entering a school district. The number of years for students to achieve proficiency varies based on the student’s starting level of proficiency. As stated in the New Jersey ESSA plan, the WIDA ACCESS 2.0 for ELLs® exam is used to measure this growth over time.

Our WIDA ACCESS 2.0 for ELLs results are in the following slides. Students who are banded in levels 1 - 3 are also referred to as students with “entering” through “developing” levels of English. Students banded in levels 4 - 6 are referred to as “expanding” through “reaching”. Analysis of our results led us to determine that students achieve their highest scores within the reading and listening components of the assessment. We adjusted our curriculum to increase our English learners’ writing and speaking opportunities. The elementary schools have increased the amount of grades who receive the Spotlight on English curriculum and the middle school now uses the Milestones curriculum, in order to align with the high school ESL curriculum. We continue using the WIDA Model assessment as a mid-year benchmark, which allows us to adjust our instruction to best benefit our students. We have also expanded technology use in class to get students more familiar with testing platforms.

​

88

89 of 103

Narrative Explaining the WIDA ACCESS 2.0 for MLs Results

The Multilingual Learner (ML) population once again saw explosive growth of 14.6% between 2024 and 2025. This surge significantly impacted the 2025 WIDA ACCESS results, as many new students entered at very low proficiency levels at the lower elementary grade bands. Despite these challenges, we observed very promising growth, with a number of students progressing from levels 1-3 ("entering" and "developing") to levels 4-6 ("expanding").

​

We also analyzed the impact of MLs on NJSLA testing scores. While first-year ML students are exempt from the ELA portion, they are required to take the math and science sections, which are highly verbose. As a result, our large ML population's low performance skews overall district scores. Moreover, successes within the ML program are not fully reflected, as former MLs are no longer counted in the ML subgroup once they exit the program.

​

The influx of students with little or no English proficiency, especially at the lowest grade levels, has had a profound effect on the district. Many of these students are refugees from non-Spanish-speaking regions, and our ability to communicate with them is limited. AI translation tools could play a vital role in supporting these students, and we are eager to explore this potential solution.

​

​

​

​

89

90 of 103

​

K and 1st

2nd & 3rd

4th & 5th

6th, 7th & 8th

9th, 10th,

11th & 12th

Total Tested

109*

94*

44

72

261

ELP 1-3

90%

63%

61%

71%

83%

ELP 4-6

6%

19%

30%

28%

16%

2025 ACCESS English Language Proficiency Test Results

  • By the end of the academic year when testing occurred, the majority of students in ELP levels 4-6 exited the program.
  • Due to variations in tested students and averaging of averages, percent totals will not add up to 100%.
  • Cliffside Park School District uses multiple measures of assessment, in addition to WIDA ACCESS 2.0, to determine English proficiency.
  • Asterisked numbers are whole population, the number of tested students was lower. Percentages reflect tested students.

91 of 103

91

2024 ACCESS English Language Proficiency Test Results

​

92 of 103

​

K and 1st

2nd & 3rd

4th & 5th

6th, 7th & 8th

9th, 10th,

11th & 12th

Total Tested

95*

74*

36

64

237

ELP 1-3

85%

58%

53%

84%

86%

ELP 4-6

12%

30%

47%

16%

14%

2024 ACCESS English Language Proficiency Test Results

  • By the end of the academic year when testing occurred, the majority of students in ELP levels 4-6 exited the program.
  • Due to variations in tested students and averaging of averages, percent totals will not add up to 100%.
  • Cliffside Park School District uses multiple measures of assessment, in addition to WIDA ACCESS 2.0, to determine English proficiency.
  • Asterisked numbers are whole population, the number of tested students was lower. Percentages reflect tested students.

93 of 103

93

2024 ACCESS English Language Proficiency Test Results

​

94 of 103

​

K and 1st

2nd & 3rd

4th & 5th

6th, 7th & 8th

9th, 10th,

11th & 12th

Total Tested

109*

53*

38

53

235

ELP 1-3

89%

71%

66%

92%

88%

ELP 4-6

11%

29%

34%

8%

12%

2023 ACCESS English Language Proficiency Test Results

  • By the end of the academic year when testing occurred, the majority of students in ELP levels 4-6 exited the program.
  • Due to variations in tested students and averaging of averages, percent totals will not add up to 100%.
  • Cliffside Park School District uses multiple measures of assessment, in addition to WIDA ACCESS 2.0, to determine English proficiency.
  • Asterisked numbers are whole population, the number of tested students was lower. Percentages reflect tested students.

95 of 103

​

K and 1st

2nd & 3rd

4th & 5th

6th, 7th & 8th

9th, 10th,

11th & 12th

Total Tested

81

41

31

43

180

ELP 1-3

99%

85%

68%

79%

88%

ELP 4-6

1%

15%

32%

21%

12%

2022 ACCESS English Language Proficiency Test Results

  • By the end of the academic year when testing occurred, the majority of students in ELP levels 4-6 exited the program.
  • Due to variations in tested students and averaging of averages, percent totals will not add up to 100%.
  • Cliffside Park School District uses multiple measures of assessment, in addition to WIDA ACCESS 2.0, to determine English proficiency.

96 of 103

​

K and 1st

2nd & 3rd

4th & 5th

6th, 7th & 8th

9th, 10th,

11th & 12th

Total Tested

70

47

34

36

139

ELP 1-3

44%

43%

21%

44%

60%

ELP 4-6

56%

57%

79%

56%

40%

2021 ACCESS English Language Proficiency Test Results

  • By the end of the academic year when testing occurred, the majority of students in ELP levels 4-6 exited the program.
  • Due to variations in tested students and averaging of averages, percent totals will not add up to 100%.
  • Cliffside Park School District uses multiple measures of assessment, in addition to WIDA ACCESS 2.0, to determine English proficiency.

97 of 103

​

K and 1st

2nd & 3rd

4th & 5th

6th, 7th & 8th

9th, 10th,

11th & 12th

Total Tested

72

63

31

47

194

ELP 1-3

83%

75%

39%

85%

76%

ELP 4-6

17%

18%

61%

15%

23%

2019 ACCESS English Language Proficiency Test Results

  • By the end of the academic year when testing occurred, the majority of students in ELP levels 4-6 exited the program.
  • Due to variations in tested students and averaging of averages, percent totals will not add up to 100%.
  • Cliffside Park School District uses multiple measures of assessment, in addition to WIDA ACCESS 2.0, to determine English proficiency.

98 of 103

​

K and 1st

2nd & 3rd

4th & 5th

6th, 7th & 8th

9th, 10th,

11th & 12th

Total Tested

81

44

26

46

197

ELP 1-3

78%

66%

73%

83%

83%

ELP 4-6

17%

20%

27%

17%

16%

2018 ACCESS English Language Proficiency Test Results

  • By the end of the academic year when testing occurred, the majority of students in ELP levels 4-6 exited the program.
  • Due to variations in tested students and averaging of averages, percent totals will not add up to 100%.
  • Cliffside Park School District uses multiple measures of assessment, in addition to WIDA ACCESS 2.0, to determine English proficiency.

99 of 103

​

K and 1st

2nd & 3rd

4th & 5th

6th, 7th & 8th

9th, 10th,

11th & 12th

Total Tested

100

48

27

57

155

ELP 1-3

65%

58%

59%

75%

81%

ELP 4-6

15%

21%

41%

25%

18%

2017 ACCESS English Language Proficiency Test Results

  • By the end of the academic year when testing occurred, the majority of students in ELP levels 4-6 exited the program.
  • Due to variations in tested students and averaging of averages, percent totals will not add up to 100%.
  • Cliffside Park School District uses multiple measures of assessment, in addition to WIDA ACCESS 2.0, to determine English proficiency.

100 of 103

​

K and 1st

2nd & 3rd

4th & 5th

6th, 7th & 8th

9th, 10th,

11th & 12th

Total Tested

86

27

27

44

121

ELP 1-3

63%

33%

44%

77%

56%

ELP 4-6

37%

67%

56%

23%

44%

2016 ACCESS English Language Proficiency Test Results

  • By the end of the academic year when testing occurred, the majority of students in ELP levels 4-6 exited the program.
  • Due to variations in tested students and averaging of averages, percent totals will not add up to 100%.
  • Cliffside Park School District uses multiple measures of assessment, in addition to WIDA ACCESS 2.0, to determine English proficiency.

101 of 103

Special Education Supplement

NJSLA Score Overview

At Cliffside Park, we believe our students are far more than just their test scores. Social interactions, behavior, peer integration, and participation in school, community, and family activities are all vital to their overall development. However, academic assessments play a key role in evaluating the effectiveness of our curriculum and teaching methods. They help us determine if adjustments are needed or if our current approaches are successfully enhancing academic skills over time.

​

We’re proud to report a district-wide trend of improvement in both ELA and Math over the past two years. Notably, our students with IEPs outperformed last year’s scores by an impressive 15%. This achievement means fewer students are scoring at levels 1-2 on the NJSLA, with more students advancing to proficiency levels 4-5. The growth we’re seeing is both promising and a testament to the hard work of our students and educators.

​

​

101

102 of 103

ELA Growth Strategies

for Students with Special Needs

  • Provide students with equal access to materials, including skill-specific, specialized materials.
  • Use of leveled readers
  • Pre-teach vocabulary, note-taking, highlighting within texts
  • Multisensory methods
  • Increased practice with NJSLA accommodations and technology (text to speech or speech to text, etc)
  • Graphic organizers
  • Increased Participation in Benchmark Testing
  • Allow for Student Choice in completing projects
  • Access to word/picture banks
  • Provide a NJSLA-aligned rubric to self-assess writing product while following an extended revision process
  • Provide wait time to allow students to process orally presented information and questions.
  • Utilize individual student assessment results to guide small group and remedial instruction
  • Allow extra time to complete reading and writing assignments.
  • Provide writing templates

102

103 of 103

Math Growth Strategies

for Students with Special Needs

  • Equal access to materials and specialized materials
  • Allow student to use calculator. Teach students how to check accuracy.
  • Provide manipulatives
  • Provide number chart or number lines to aid in solving equations. Teach students how to check accuracy.
  • Provide graph paper to aid in aligning equations properly
  • Provide study guides
  • Utilize visual aids such as charts or graphs and provide explicit instruction in how to analyze or use the data or information.
  • Utilize individual student assessment results to guide small group and remedial instruction
  • Provide wait time to allow students to process orally presented information and questions.
  • Pre-teach math-specific vocabulary
  • Allow extra time
  • Provide students with a sample problem or list of steps or procedures for multi-step problems for student to reference when solving independently.
  • Increase participation in Benchmark Testing

​

103