Committee members asked for comparative data when district staff presented the plan for upcoming elementary assessment reporting. Staff scheduled a deep dive on elementary I‑Ready and 3–8 state results for the October 3 meeting and explained constraints for year‑to‑year comparisons.

A staff presenter said the district can show within‑year growth (fall to winter to spring) for I‑Ready and that the fall testing window closes in October; because the district began full I‑Ready implementation only last year, a full year‑to‑year comparison for all students was not available for this first presentation. “We were able to show growth, from our fall to our winter… we could show growth from winter to spring,” a staff presenter said.

Committee members asked whether results can be benchmarked against local peer districts or earlier NWEA results. Staff said I‑Ready is normed nationally and can be compared to state and national norms but cautioned that crosswalks between I‑Ready and previous measures (such as NWEA) are imperfect. Staff also noted that NWEA is undergoing re‑norming this year, complicating direct comparisons.

Staff reiterated work on an Instructional Data Warehouse and dashboards designed to present multiple measures (assessment scores, attendance, discipline and SEL indicators) for teachers, principals and directors. Committee members requested that presentations clarify which comparison groups (state, national, or identified peers) the district will use when reporting results to the board and community.

Ending: Staff said the October deep dive will present elementary I‑Ready results and a summary for the board meeting that follows.