Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Performance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Douglas County presents winter Beacon and common‑assessment results; district sets interim goals
Summary
District staff presented winter Beacon and common‑assessment data showing mixed results across grades and subjects and introduced interim goals; board members requested subgroup breakdowns and clearer visualizations for future reports.
The Douglas County School System presented winter Beacon assessment and common‑assessment results to the Board of Education on Jan. 13, 2025, showing mixed proficiency trends and introducing interim goals for the district.
Latoya Mack, assistant superintendent of strategic data and research, summarized the winter administration results and said the state altered reporting to show “lower projected levels and upper projected levels” for the winter. Mack said third through fifth grade English language arts (ELA) winter proficiency (proficient and distinguished) measured 17% against a 16% fall baseline and an interim goal of 21%; the district’s end‑of‑year aim for that group is 41%. Sixth through eighth grade ELA winter proficiency was 19% (baseline 23%; end‑of‑year goal 42%). Third through fifth grade and sixth through eighth grade math winter results showed some decreases from interim goals and baseline in several cohorts, Mack said.
Mack described two data views: the instantaneous score if a student took the assessment that day (red) and a projected end‑of‑year level after remaining instruction (green). “What you’re seeing is you’re getting two pieces of data,” Mack told the board, adding that the green projections reflect the standards students are slated to cover before year end.
Common‑assessment findings and interpretation
District staff reported a 21% increase in fifth‑grade science proficiency between common assessment 1 and 2, while sixth and seventh grade science saw small decreases and eighth grade science increased by 12 percentage points. Middle‑school social studies results showed decreases for sixth and seventh grades and a 15% increase for eighth grade. High school end‑of‑course data were not yet available.
Board questions and requested follow‑ups
Board members sought details on baseline construction, subgroup gaps and next steps for schools missing interim goals. Dr. Scott asked whether baselines were drawn from prior GMAS scores; Mack said they used GMAS scores from the previous year for baseline calculations. Board members asked for clearer charts that show prior data points, current points and targets on line graphs, and for district staff to present subgroup breakdowns (for example by race, free/reduced status and special education) in a subsequent report.
Superintendent North and staff noted the winter data are “hot off the press”; principals will use data‑comms meetings to plan interventions. No board action was taken; staff said they will return with school‑level subgroup analyses, visualizations and proposed mitigation steps for schools not on track.
Ending
The district framed the winter results as both an early diagnostic and a planning tool; the board asked staff to provide subgroup breakdowns, clearer visualizations and recommended next‑step strategies ahead of further action.
