Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Qiesa Update topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District reports mixed Q2 academic and attendance gains, wide variability across schools
Summary
District leaders told the board that Q2 benchmarks showed improved average daily attendance, reductions in chronic absenteeism and declines in out-of-school suspensions, but implementation stages vary: 25 buildings at installation and 16 at initial implementation; leaders flagged subgroup disparities and asked for further analysis
Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools presented its Q2 QIESA (implementation and outcome) update on March 25, reporting district-level progress on attendance, disciplinary outcomes and interim academic measures while noting persistent subgroup differences and differences tied to program implementation stages.
Presenters included Dr. Danita Fernandez Flores (executive director of diploma-plus college and career instructional programs), Dr. Conrad and Dr. Sarah Lucero; Superintendent Dr. Anna Stubblefield and other district leaders joined the discussion.
District findings cited for quarter 2 included:
- Attendance and chronic absenteeism: The district reported it was exceeding its goal for average daily attendance for Q2 and showing reductions in chronic absenteeism for that quarter. Staff cautioned quarter 3 data might differ because of significant January weather events.
- Discipline and suspension: Behavior incidents were reported as on target and the district said out-of-school suspensions declined significantly in Q2 compared with prior measures.
- Postsecondary and graduation: The district reported postsecondary outcome measures improving through interim benchmarks; an early projection placed on‑time graduation near 77.5 percent but presenters framed that number with “error bars” because graduation outcomes depend on multiple factors.
- Interim academic assessments: District benchmark (DBA) and FastBridge interim assessment results show a correlation between implementation stage and interim outcomes in many categories. Buildings categorized as being at “initial implementation” generally had higher interim assessment results than those at the “installation” stage for ELA and elementary math. The district reported 25 buildings listed at the installation stage and about 16 at initial implementation; staff said they expect these counts to shift as buildings move along the implementation continuum.
Programs and supports named in the presentation included high-quality instructional materials, AVID, SIOP, a new cohort for LETRS (structured literacy/Letters training), job‑embedded professional learning, restorative practices (train‑the‑trainer model with KIPP Core), MTSS, Attend to Achieve (attendance intervention) and other initiatives.
District staff raised and discussed several unresolved or emerging issues:
- Subgroup variability: Former ELL students were generally performing better overall, but the data showed some unexpected patterns — for current ELLs the separation in performance was smaller or absent in some assessment slices. Staff also flagged American Indian/Alaska Native students as a subgroup with high chronic absenteeism and low academic outcomes; presenters cautioned small subgroup counts can cause large percentage swings and said they will analyze the underlying counts and trends.
- Restorative practices and family understanding: The district said it is expanding restorative practices but acknowledged uneven implementation across buildings and uneven parent and community understanding of what restorative interventions look like in practice. Some trustees and presenters noted families may equate fewer suspensions with “no action,” and staff said they are working to clarify how restorative approaches are used alongside other consequences when appropriate.
- Implementation measurement: The district described its current approach to classifying buildings — installation, initial implementation and full implementation — and said it is refining the monitoring tools and accounting for staff turnover, which affects a building’s implementation status.
Board questions and follow-ups included requests for:
- A clearer breakdown of building counts and how long schools typically remain in each implementation stage; staff said this is the first year they’ve gathered that level of implementation-tracking data and they will refine methods and report progress at future meetings.
- Additional analysis of subgroup outcomes (especially for small groups such as American Indian/Alaska Native students) and targeted attendance strategies via the Attend to Achieve program.
- Clarification of how interim assessments (FastBridge, DBA) are communicated to families and whether there is a documented confirmation that caregivers received or reviewed progress reports; staff said parent reports are produced and that FAs (family access points) and building-based welcome centers can support family review and follow-up.
Why it matters: The district’s Q2 update shows measurable improvement in attendance and reductions in suspensions at the district level, but it also highlights uneven results across schools and student groups. Trustees emphasized the need to connect implementation supports and budget decisions (for example, additional restorative-practices staffing or family-engagement resources) to the outcomes shown in the data.
Ending: Staff said the district will bring additional quarter-3 data in upcoming meetings, provide more refined implementation tracking and furnish subgroup breakdowns and follow-up analyses requested by the board.
