Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Assessments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District presents midyear assessment results showing mixed gains, board requests deeper breakdown
Summary
District staff presented midyear results from Istation (K–2), IMASA (grades 3–8) and STAR (grades 9–12). Presenters reported overall gains in many grades and subgroups but several dips and small subgroup fluctuations prompted board requests for student counts and more granular analysis and intervention plans.
Doctor Martin, presenter, delivered the district's midyear assessment report on test results collected in December, showing pockets of growth and areas needing attention.
Martin reported that K'2 students who take Istation showed districtwide growth in both reading and math compared with last year's end-of-year results; he said last year's end-of-year reading was 36% districtwide and math 39%. He told the board that most sites and many subgroups improved at midyear, but some groups and grades declined and will require follow-up in instructional coaching and PLCs. "We see growth in both reading and math," Martin said. "Some of the slides show progress. Some of them do not."
The presentation covered three assessment families: ISIP/Istation for K'2, IMASA for grades 3'8 and STAR for grades 9'12 (the district purchased STAR interim assessments for high school). Martin said the district will emphasize spiral reviews so students revisit earlier standards during the year.
Board members repeatedly asked for counts behind the percentages. Dr. Guy pressed for raw student counts by school and subgroup to interpret swings in small populations; Martin said he would provide those figures. Martin confirmed that the K'2 English learner (ELL) cohort included 14 students and that a reported 5.56 percentage-point drop in one small subgroup represented three students changing levels. "We're talking about 3 kids that went from level 4 to level 3," Martin said of one ELL change.
Board members also requested clearer presentation of where students sit relative to "nearing proficiency" (the on-the-bubble group) and how MLSS/MTSS interventions are being used. Several trustees emphasized that proficiency percentages can obscure the number of students who are close to meeting standards and urged the administration to show the counts so the board and public can better understand intervention priorities.
Trustees and staff discussed accommodations and alternate assessments for students with disabilities. Martin and other staff said most students take the same assessments with allowable accommodations (text-to-speech, extra time) and that a small number of students take alternate DLM assessments; those alternate-assessment results are reported separately.
Martin and Superintendent Weidner said instructional coaches and teachers are already using the midyear data in PLCs to target interventions. The board asked for follow-up reports that include student counts, school-level breakdowns, and the specific intervention plans schools will deploy before the spring assessments.
The board indicated it will review additional materials at an upcoming instructional coaches meeting and asked administration to return with more detailed, student-level context.
The presentation was followed by questions and clarifications from multiple trustees about methodology, subgroup sizes and next steps.
