Lee's Summit R-VII reviews new program-evaluation framework; no formal vote

The Lee's Summit R-VII Board of Education met in a work session to review a staff‑prepared program-evaluation framework that would set objectives and measurable success metrics for 12 district program areas, including federal programs, special services, career and technical education, gifted education, early childhood, student health services, library media and technology.

Doctor Barger, who led the presentation, said the framework is “guided by board policy IM” and emphasized that the intent is to shift from informal “show and tell” reports to a formal evaluation in which objectives and measurable criteria are set in advance. “This is about how do we know we are fulfilling the expectations of our programs,” Barger told the board.

The proposal aligns each program’s stated objectives with quantifiable metrics. Examples staff presented include: tying federal programs’ academic objective to NWEA fall‑to‑spring growth (a target that at least 50% of students in each subgroup meet their identified growth goal); special services targets that at least 50% of students’ IEPs reflect being inside the regular classroom 80% or more of the time and that 90% of students make progress on their IEP goals; career and technical education (CTE) targets of a minimum of 1,600 CTE concentrators and 200 real‑world activities; a gifted‑identification target of roughly 4% of K–12 students meeting DESE criteria; early childhood targets of 90% of available spots filled and ECSE exit rates at or above 95% of state expectations; and library circulation and engagement targets near 625,000 annual checkouts and participation by 85% of students. Student health services projected approximate annual workload figures (about 70,000 health‑room visits, 17,000 medical procedures and 17–29 911 calls). Technology and professional development metrics were tied to nationally recognized rubrics and staff‑survey favorability (e.g., DESE staff culture and climate survey 80% favorable responses).

Board members generally praised the format as clear and useful. Board President Foley noted that members of the public “see us approving new programs... but they never hear us say, well, we got rid of that one because it didn't work,” and asked how program removals or replacements (for example, instructional resources such as Lexia) would be tracked. Staff said the longer evaluation form (linked in the agenda packet) includes sections for changes made and follow‑up from prior evaluations and that purchasing cycles and review periods also create natural points for deeper evaluation.

Several trustees raised questions about special education staffing and classroom balance after leaders described district guideposts and caseload formulas used to equalize students with IEPs across classrooms. Board members asked how the district would detect and respond when a small building or grade level concentrated higher proportions of students with IEPs; staff described a five‑year staffing plan, formulas tied to class type and caseload, and the availability of non‑allocated FTE requests when concentrations exceed targets.

Board members also asked how the framework would address students experiencing homelessness under McKinney‑Vento. Staff noted McKinney‑Vento is an unfunded federal mandate and that identification can vary in duration; they said the district provides supports case‑by‑case and that developing a useful, privacy‑sensitive metric for that population would require additional work.

No formal vote was taken on adopting the framework during the work session. Staff said they will operationalize the schedule, correct minor typographical errors in the draft (including changing a gifted target referenced as 5% to 4%), finalize page breaks and return scheduled program evaluations under the cadence established by board policy. Under board policy IM (as referenced in the discussion), the 12 program evaluations are to be reported every two years; staff said data will be available to the board on request at other intervals.

The discussion ran through examples across program areas and emphasized that the program‑evaluation document is intended to complement, not replace, the district's CSIP (Comprehensive School Improvement Plan): CSIP contains action steps to drive improvement, while the program evaluation documents whether a program met its stated objectives. The board directed staff to proceed with operationalizing the evaluation schedule and to provide follow‑up data and clarifications requested by trustees.

Staff and trustees thanked the workgroup for preparing the draft. No additional formal actions were recorded before the work session adjourned.