Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessment And Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees, staff debate whether current assessment and LSG reporting show year-to-year growth
Summary
Board members and administrators discussed CBA/benchmark results and the Lone Star Governance (LSG) reporting tool, with questions about whether existing measures show student growth across cohorts or only single-assessment snapshots.
Board trustees and district staff spent a substantive portion of the meeting discussing assessment metrics, the Lone Star Governance (LSG) reporting tool and how the district measures year-to-year growth.
Board members asked whether the LSG progress measures and common district assessments (CBAs) reveal growth for cohorts over time or merely provide single-time snapshots that are hard to compare across years. “I think the thing that I keep hearing is we want to see the growth overall,” one trustee said, noting the need to see whether the fourth- or fifth-grade cohort is making measurable progress.
District staff described the structure of local assessments and benchmarks. They explained that CBAs are taken within class periods and that the district also administers semester exams and a release STAR benchmark; the latter is used to provide a broader data picture prior to state STAR testing. Staff said the district reports averages across several CBAs and a fall semester exam and that some CBAs (for example unit 6) include more-challenging content.
The presentation included disaggregated results: one cited example showed 229 sixth-grade students for CBA number 6 with 85 students meeting or exceeding the target (approximately 37% needs-and-above/met threshold for that unit); staff also gave subgroup percentages (Hispanic 43% in one snapshot, economically disadvantaged 34–39%, African American about 2.83% in that excerpt, white 40–43%). Staff said they are working with Region 3 coaches for added support for sixth-grade math and are running eight Saturdays of targeted remediation in addition to after-school tutoring and intervention blocks.
Trustees and staff also flagged a reporting question: the baseline used by the district is last year’s fifth-grade cohort, which creates an “apples-to-apples” comparison for certain targets but can make interim comparisons confusing. Trustees asked staff to prepare clearer cohort-growth displays and to put requested data into an agreed template so trustees can review growth across measured periods.
No board action was taken on metrics during the meeting; trustees asked for follow-up data and suggested a broader conversation about whether the current tool and goals remain fit for the district’s needs.
