Cumberland County Schools report small district score dip, 27 schools now labeled low-performing

Cumberland County Schools reported a slight decline in its statewide accountability composite and a rise in the number of schools designated low-performing, prompting public concern and board questions about sustained improvement plans.

Superintendent Dr. Bracey said the district—omposite score fell from 50.9 to 50.8 this year and acknowledged an increased number of schools on the state's low-performing list. "Let me be clear. This is not where we want to be, and it is not where we will stay," she said.

Kim Nash, a district staff member who presented the data, described how the North Carolina accountability model weights achievement and growth, and she reviewed subgroup and grade-level results that underlie the system's school performance grades. The presentation said 78% of schools met or exceeded growth and highlighted pockets of substantial gains at individual schools while noting declines in some subject areas and subgroups.

Key figures presented by Nash and discussed at the meeting included: the district composite falling from 50.9 to 50.8; 27 schools designated as low-performing under the state's criteria; 48.7% of schools that increased their composite proficiency; seven schools whose composite rose by five percentage points or more; and a district graduation rate reported at 86.3 percent. Nash also singled out Pine Forest High School for leading district growth with a maximum converted growth score of 100 and a thirteenth-in-state ranking, and Westover Middle School as the district's second-highest growth, ranked 30th statewide.

Nash explained the state's growth measure known in the presentation as EBOS (described verbally as the education value-added assessment system), which compares a school's results against a statistical projection built from similar students across the state. "EBOS is complicated," Nash said, adding that growth is a comparative measure and that schools that move students forward at the same rate as peers "meet" but do not "exceed" growth.

Board members and public commenters urged clear, multi-year strategies targeted to subgroups and recurring low-performing schools. Board member Miss Musko asked why so many schools could meet or exceed growth yet still remain on the low-performing list; Nash explained that meeting growth does not always raise absolute proficiency enough to remove a school from the state's low-performing designation. Board member Miss Warner asked how many schools that left the low-performing list last year have returned; Nash said she did not have that specific number available at the meeting and would provide it later.

Public commenter Barbara Snyder said the results were a long-term problem and urged sustained plans beyond one-year fixes: "We have 50% proficiency in our school system. That means half of our children are not getting what they've come here to get. That's a problem." Another public speaker, William Murphy, used his time to invite officials to an alumni association event and did not address the accountability numbers directly.

The district noted specific subject-area patterns: small gains in combined grades 3— reading and math, a large decline in grades 5 and 8 science tied in the presentation to a new assessment and standards, and notable increases in some elementary and middle-school grade-level scores at individual schools (examples cited in the presentation included third-grade reading gains as large as 18.7 percentage points at one school and a 33.3-point increase in fourth-grade reading at another school). At the high-school level, Nash reported an 8.7 percentage-point increase in Math 3 proficiency but declines in Biology and Math 1.

Nash also described the district's process for identifying and supporting low-performing schools: schools with a performance grade of D or F and a growth score of "met" or "not met" are required to develop comprehensive improvement plans and receive intensive support through the district's PACE (Performance Accountability Support and Empowerment) model. Nash and Dr. Bracey said a more detailed academic improvement plan would be shared with the board and public in the coming weeks.

The board chair closed the meeting by acknowledging the results as "a call to action," noting the mixed data (schools that improved and those that did not) and urging continued partnership with families and community groups to accelerate student achievement. No new board policy or formal vote on an academic-improvement plan occurred at the meeting; members directed staff to return with more detailed recommendations and data at upcoming committee meetings.