Board presses for district metrics after state reporting differs from grade-level goals
Loading...
Summary
Superintendent Tim Winter walked the board through district goals and differences between state-reported college-readiness metrics and the district's aim to measure grade-level proficiency in math; board members asked for more frequent, local data.
At the May 21 meeting, Superintendent Tim Winter and board members discussed the district's academic goals and how the Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) reports assessment results, a difference that complicates the district's stated aim of tracking grade-level proficiency.
Tim told the board that OSPI's recent reporting includes a college-readiness metric and a separate indicator for foundational growth. He said that OSPI's headline number—"41.3 percent" in math—represents students who are "on track for college-level learning without needing remedial classes," while a different line shows "68 percent" demonstrating foundational growth at grade level or above.
"All kids should be at grade level or higher. That's the goal," Tim said, framing the district's objective as grade-level proficiency rather than the state's college-readiness benchmark.
Tim provided baseline and interim results used for board targets: third grade baseline 51.8% with a June goal of 58% (district at 56% at the most recent check); seventh grade baseline 41% with a goal of 47% (district at 39%); and tenth grade baseline 26% with a goal of 32% (district at 28%). He said the district will continue to use professional learning communities and common assessments tied to the essential standards to measure growth more frequently rather than relying solely on end-of-year statewide tests.
Board members asked for more ongoing data. The district plans to bring common-assessment and formative data to future study sessions and to pilot a data platform to make performance trends more accessible to board members and the public. Tim said the spring STAR and other local assessments will feed into the year-end review used to set goals for the next school year.
Ending: The board and superintendent agreed to bring more regular, unit-level and formative data to upcoming study sessions so trustees can monitor student growth more frequently than the current state-reporting cadence allows.
