USD 368 presents first-year results from new state assessment; district outperforms state averages in ELA, math and science
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
District staff presented first-year results from the state’s rewritten assessment, reporting that USD 368 students scored at or above state averages in multiple grades and subjects and that level‑1 (limited) percentages were below the state in most grades.
District staff presented the first-year results from the state’s revised assessment and walked the board through district and grade‑level performance in English language arts (ELA), math and science. Staff characterized the results as a positive benchmark year.
Presenters said the state assessment was revised after a long gap and now measures students’ performance against grade‑level content standards only; the new cut scores and performance levels (level 1 = limited, level 2 = basic, level 3 = proficient, level 4 = advanced) were set with input from Kansas educators. Staff cautioned the board that the assessment is a snapshot of grade‑level mastery and is not primarily a longitudinal growth measure.
Key points staff reported: - Districtwide, more than 51% of students scored at levels 3 or 4 in ELA compared with about 43–44% statewide. The district’s level‑1 percentages in ELA were significantly below the state average. - In math, the district outperformed the state average on levels 3 and 4 in most grade levels and had lower level‑1 percentages across grade levels; the presenter noted district averages were higher than state averages in six of seven tested grade levels. - Fifth‑ and eighth‑grade science averages were above state averages, with fewer students in level 1 and more in levels 3 and 4.
Staff emphasized the data will serve as a benchmark for future years. Board members asked about tracking growth across cohorts (e.g., whether a fourth‑grade cohort can be followed into fifth grade under the new design). Staff replied the new test measures grade‑level standards and is not structured as a direct growth measure; however, staff said disaggregated grade‑level trends can be examined and compared over time to infer progress.
Staff also noted the state will not set formal accountability targets for a year or two while it collects multiple years of data for the new assessment.
