Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the K12 Student Achievement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sumter superintendent outlines 6% growth goal as 13 schools remain underperforming
Summary
Superintendent William Wright presented district goals including a target to raise student proficiency by 6%, while district staff detailed 13 underperforming schools and ongoing school-level turnaround plans. Board members pressed for SMART metrics, data timelines and clarity on supports for special populations.
Superintendent William Wright on Feb. 25 told the Sumter School District Board of Trustees that he has set three central goals for the year — student achievement, facilities and human capital — including an explicit target to “improve student proficiency by a minimum of 6%” at every school.
The superintendent said the 6% target is intended to produce measurable growth and that district staff will track formative and summative assessment data, attendance and behavioral measures. “We are also working to enhance our ability to analyze data derived from formative and summative assessments to improve student performance,” Wright said.
The warning nut graf: The presentation came as the district’s academic team reported that 13 schools were designated below average or unsatisfactory on the 2023–24 South Carolina school report cards, and trustees pressed staff for concrete, time‑bound measures to make the goals actionable.
District academic staff listed the 13 schools identified as underperforming: Bates Middle School, Cherryville Elementary, Chestnut Oaks Middle School, Crestwood High School, Croswell Drive Elementary, Lakewood High School, Lemire (spelled “Lemira” in some internal slides) Elementary, Manchester Elementary, Pecola Springs Elementary, Rafton Creek Elementary, R.E. Davis (elementary side), Sumter High School and Willow Drive Elementary. The report said some schools were only one or two points from the next performance level.
Board members asked for SMART goals and midyear metrics. Trustee Tyra Kauser Johnson said she wanted the goals rewritten as SMART statements and requested interim metrics; Wright replied he would provide revised, measurable statements and that two years of growth data would be available at the June meeting (the third year’s accountability data would not yet be finalized). Dr. Ralph W. Canty Sr. pressed whether the governor’s three‑year, cumulative 18% growth expectation (6% annually) was realistic; Wright said it may be realistic in some areas but not across the board and offered to provide progress data.
Trustees and staff addressed causes and supports. The academic presentation noted that several schools had recently exited ATSI or TSI designations (Crestwood High, Pecola Springs, R.E. Davis and others) and that priority schools include Bates Middle and Cherryville. The district said state designations (CSI, ATSI, TSI, priority) trigger technical assistance and assignment of state transformation coaches; staff said the district has worked with principals to produce school turnaround plans that are reviewed monthly.
Board members flagged two recurring issues: teacher certification and instructional coaching. District staff confirmed some underperforming schools have higher percentages of uncertified teachers; academic staff said the district is deploying instructional coaches and school improvement coordinators to support teachers but acknowledged variability across schools. Dr. William Wright and academic staff said they will pursue greater consistency in programs and interventions across schools so students moving within the district see aligned instruction.
The superintendent also presented goals on facilities and human capital. On facilities, Wright said the district needs an updated facilities study (the last was 2018) and will issue an RFP for an updated assessment to guide replacement, renovation or repurposing decisions for 2025–26. On human capital, Wright said the district is reviewing classroom allocations to reduce class sizes at lower grades and is examining bus routing to improve staffing; he set a June 30 deadline to propose bus routing changes.
Board members and staff agreed on next steps: rewrite the goals to SMART format, provide interim and cumulative growth data available by June, continue monthly reviews of school turnaround plans, and return with a proposed timeline for a new facilities study. Trustees asked the district to consider a more uniform set of intervention programs and to clarify how instructional coaches and behavior interventionists will be funded going forward (that funding discussion continued in a separate Title I presentation).
Ending: District staff said principals have been meeting with the academic team to produce data templates and school‑level presentations for community stakeholders; the board requested the revised SMART goals and interim student‑growth data at upcoming meetings.
