Board asks for cohort growth data, demographics and deeper review of MISD highly capable program

At a special meeting April 8, 2025, Mercer Island School District staff and board members discussed a data presentation on the district’s highly capable (Hi‑Cap) program. Staff clarified that the slides in question presented raw average scores across grades — a cross‑sectional snapshot — not longitudinal growth for the same group of students. Board members asked staff to produce cohort growth data and additional disaggregations for future reporting and to calendar a deeper program review in the fall.

What staff said about the charts Weston (district staff presenter) explained that the contested charts (slides 21–22) show single‑year raw scores across grade levels rather than growth for specific cohorts. “These slides 21 and 22 are an average raw score…so while it does show growth in one way, there are better ways to show growth,” Weston said, and offered to run cohort growth measures using iReady growth reports and the district’s homeroom data tool.

Board requests and rationale Board members requested several clarifications and future reports: cohort‑level longitudinal growth (tracking the same students from fall to spring and year‑to‑year), explicit labeling of chart cohorts and populations, separation of students who receive highly capable services from those identified but not receiving services, and demographic breakdowns including gender and race/ethnicity. Multiple directors emphasized interest in growth measures rather than single‑year snapshots so the district can verify whether students are making the expected amount of progress.

Timing and next steps District staff said a fuller set of data will be available after the spring assessment cycle and suggested timing options: a data update in August (to capture fall, winter and spring benchmarks), a study session in June, or a deeper review in the fall. Staff signaled they would provide additional breakdowns and work with board leadership to schedule a targeted deep dive during the fall study session sequence.

Context and compliance Fred (district staff) explained that the highly capable program plan is an annual submission used to secure state funds through OSPI’s iGrants process and is reviewed for compliance with state rules (WAC). He said the district’s submission had been filed and, historically, OSPI will return a plan for edits if it finds items not in compliance.

Discussion highlights and points of difference Board members debated emphasis and priorities. Deborah (Board director) urged caution about drawing conclusions from single data points and asked for consistent cohort growth reporting to understand whether all students are making a year’s growth. Dan (Board director) reiterated his earlier calculation that the raw change in average scores in the presented charts showed slightly higher gains for the non‑Hi‑Cap group; board members agreed the slope of change was similar and that clearer cohort metrics were needed.

No formal board action was taken on this item; the discussion produced a set of data requests and a commitment from staff to return with cohort growth metrics and disaggregated demographic reporting.