Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Performance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District releases end‑of‑year achievement analysis; officials highlight data tools and targeted gap strategy
Summary
Academic leaders presented year‑over‑year outcomes July 29, noting small districtwide score gains that lagged state increases, a drop in third‑grade achievement in places, and new business‑intelligence tools that identify a small share of schools and teachers accounting for a large share of performance gaps.
Academic services leaders told the school board July 29 that while Lee County showed some overall gains in 2024–25, the district did not keep pace with statewide improvement and that targeted supports will be needed in a limited number of higher‑impact classrooms and schools.
Dr. Nathan Shaker and Philip Savage (business intelligence) presented the end‑of‑year review and a newly developed “gap analysis” dashboard that district staff said enables drill‑downs to the teacher and classroom level. Savage noted Lee County’s ELA achievement score rose from 50 to 52 year‑over‑year while the state rose from 53 to 56, widening the district‑to‑state gap in some categories. He also highlighted that the percentage of Lee County elementary schools earning A/B grades (48%) remains below the state average (~67%).
Shaker and Savage emphasized actionable analytics: the new tools identify “pockets of excellence” and a relatively small set of outlier classrooms driving much of the gap. Savage said the data show that “73% of our Lee County school district gap, in learning gains, is really coming from only about 21% of our schools,” and Shaker added that a large portion of math gaps originated with about 15% of teachers. The district said those analyses are already informing targeted supports and staffing decisions.
Regional superintendent Angela Nader described how the dashboard is being used operationally: forensics and early indicators were shared with principals in June, allowing summer planning and earlier intervention than in previous years. Nader said the district has realigned regional teams so each region has ELA and math specialists, ESE coordinators, behavior specialists and ESOL staff in place to provide more rapid, localized support.
District officials noted specific concerns: third‑grade achievement showed a decline in some cohorts and will receive extra attention; middle‑ and high‑school math pathways (algebra support) were identified as other priorities. Shaker and Savage said the district can now target interventions at specific “bubble” students and replicate practices used by high‑performing teachers.
Board members and the superintendent praised the transparency and asked for regular follow‑up. Superintendent Dr. Niece Carlin said the combination of teacher assignment stability (see Project Believe) and the new data tools gives the district an operational advantage. No formal board action was taken; staff said the dashboards will continue to guide regional conversations and resource allocations.
Ending: Officials stressed a dual approach—stabilizing classrooms by filling vacancies and using the new business‑intelligence gap analysis to target supports to the small subset of schools and teachers producing outsized gaps.
