District reports gains on 11th-grade science assessment; parent raises concerns about I‑Ready and test opt‑outs

Superintendent and high-school staff reported an improved result on the New Hampshire SAS 11th‑grade science assessment: 60% of juniors were proficient or above and an additional 19% were approaching grade level, a combined 79% at or near grade level. District staff compared that to the prior year’s tested cohort (32% proficient or above), calling the change a 24‑percentage-point increase in proficiency and a 24‑point decrease in the proportion of students scoring below proficiency.

Participation and counts: Of 324 juniors enrolled, 280 took the test (87% participation); six students opted out and 20 were absent; additional juniors are in adult‑education programs. District staff said they expect to finish outreach so participation may rise into the 90% range when absentees and alternate arrangements are resolved.

Staff credited high‑school administration and the science department for outreach and preparation, including in‑class briefing by a competency coach, a PTSO‑sponsored breakfast for students on test day and limited incentives for improved performance. Administrators reported they scheduled testing with familiar science teachers to provide continuity and support and noted that an expanded effort to communicate the test’s instructional value likely contributed to stronger engagement.

Public comment and opt‑out concerns: Earlier in the meeting, a parent, Sean Matera (15 Preserve Drive), urged the board to reconsider the district’s use of frequent computer‑based assessments such as I‑Ready. Matera said he often opts his own children out of state tests and criticized what he described as the volume of interim district assessments, arguing parents were not being asked why they opted out. He also raised concerns that some interim assessments appeared misaligned with what students had been taught and questioned incentives tied to interim results.

Board response and next steps: Board members and administrators discussed outreach to families who opt out. Superintendent and staff said district coordinators engage with families who request opt‑out forms to understand reasons and to explain the value of state assessments and how results inform instruction. A board member offered to draft a letter from the board encouraging participation and clarifying the importance of state testing; the superintendent said staff would circulate a draft to the board for review. The administration also said they would continue follow‑up conversations with parents who opt out and emphasized that state assessments inform curriculum and targeted interventions.

Student voice and school perspective: A student speaker, Dylan (student council), and a high‑school staff member who supports testing efforts described incentives (breakfasts, reminders) and direct teacher involvement as helpful in obtaining higher participation and performance. The board and staff agreed to continue outreach, consider how interim assessments like I‑Ready are used in promotion and course placement decisions, and to evaluate communication strategies to rebuild or strengthen parent trust.

Outcome: The board did not take a formal vote on policy changes. Administrators will continue outreach to families who opt out, coordinate follow‑up conversations, and provide a proposed board letter for review at the next meeting.