Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the K 12 Curriculum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District review finds advanced English placement linked to long-term outcomes; board to continue program review
Summary
The Stevens Point Area Public School District heard preliminary results May 20 showing that students placed in advanced English courses in grade 9 were substantially more likely to meet preACT/ACT benchmarks and earn higher GPAs over four years, and that economically disadvantaged students were markedly underrepresented in advanced pathways.
Get email alerts on the K 12 Curriculum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Stevens Point Area Public School District heard preliminary results May 20 showing that students placed in advanced English courses in grade 9 were substantially more likely to meet preACT/ACT benchmarks and earn higher GPAs over four years, and that economically disadvantaged students were markedly underrepresented in advanced pathways.
The findings come from a district program review and course-sequencing analysis conducted with consultant Hanover. Board members and administrators said the analysis will be used to study placement practices, earlier interventions and family communication; no formal policy change was adopted at the meeting.
Administrators told the board the Hanover analysis tracked cohorts from ninth through twelfth grade and compared GPA, preACT and ACT performance. Jeff (staff member) and Chris (staff member) presented the results and noted the patterns were similar to those seen in other districts. Jeff said advanced-placement in grade 9 correlated with “stronger final GPAs and ACT benchmark attainment in the long term.”
Board members pressed for more detail on where pathways begin. Several members noted placement decisions appear to occur before ninth grade and asked staff to trace earlier data. One board member said a student’s missed dual‑enrollment enrollment at Mid‑State Technical College had left that student with fewer college credits than expected; administrators confirmed Mid‑State staff typically assist with the second step of enrollment and that the district will improve verification and family communication.
The district shared several headline figures from the preliminary review: more than 70% of students placed in advanced English 9 or advanced English 9 plus debate met grade‑9 benchmarks on preACT, while only about 17%–24% of students placed in standard English 9 met those same benchmarks. Economically disadvantaged students were underrepresented in advanced DLA pathways: just 1.3% of socioeconomically disadvantaged students were enrolled in advanced coursework in grade 12 compared with 7.7% of non‑disadvantaged peers. Administrators also cited AP participation rates of roughly 4% for disadvantaged students versus about 20.5% for peers, and ACT benchmark attainment of 13% versus 34.4%, respectively.
Board members and administrators framed next steps as system adjustments rather than immediate policy mandates. The board asked staff to: - continue the Hanover‑led program review and bring more detailed findings and recommendations; - examine placement practices back into middle grades to identify where pathways solidify; - explore partnerships with postsecondary partners (Mid‑State Technical College, UW‑Stevens Point and others) for alignment and verification; and - expand communication and information sessions for families about dual‑credit and early college options.
Chris noted the district will deliver building‑level reports to principals and continue to aggregate the data on a live dashboard for board review. Jim (board member) urged reaching out to university faculty and postsecondary partners for outside review; administrators and board members agreed that inviting external higher‑education input would be considered as the review proceeds.
Board members framed the work as long‑term and iterative: the board asked staff to return with more complete ELA sequencing results, options to increase equitable access to advanced coursework, and specific recommendations that could be examined at upcoming committee meetings and the board retreat.
The discussion did not include a formal vote on policy changes; the board recorded the direction to continue work and to report back with further analysis.

