Clover Park board weighs new student-growth metrics, asks for disaggregated data and clearer accountability measures

Board President opened the second day of the Clover Park School District planning meeting and asked the group to review the district’s vision, mission, beliefs and values before moving into formulation of goals and accountability measures. "I'm calling day 2 of the board planning meeting to order," the board president said.

The board discussed keeping six overarching goals: student growth and achievement; parent and community engagement; communication with stakeholders; supportive and equitable learning environments; recruitment, staff retention and professional development; and fiscal responsibilities. Directors requested staff to bring back clearer, measurable metrics for those goals, with an emphasis on tracking student growth and looking beyond a single state test.

Why it matters: board members said disaggregated data is essential to identify inequities and target supports. Several directors pressed for measures that would reveal gaps by race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status, and for metrics that capture student-level growth rather than a one-off proficiency rate.

Most substantive requests and discussion points

- Student-growth metrics: Directors asked staff to add student growth percentiles and to propose which growth measures should be used instead of relying solely on Smarter Balanced proficiency. The board noted Smarter Balanced may not be the most effective growth measure and asked for alternatives (for example, growth percentiles or course-specific pass rates such as algebra).

- Disaggregation: Multiple directors asked that indicators (graduation rates, course pass rates, access to AP/CTE classes, chronic absence, suspensions) be reported disaggregated by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status so the board can identify where gaps exist and whether they are closing over time.

- Grading equity: The board discussed the limits of using GPA as a single metric because grading involves local rubrics and some teacher subjectivity. Staff described district practices intended to reduce grading variance: common rubrics, PLC calibration at the secondary level, and a gradebook structure in which at least 70% of a student's term grade is summative work and 30% is formative checks for understanding. The board requested clarifying documentation on how GPA thresholds were selected; staff said the 2.8 benchmark is a national, research-based norm correlated with postsecondary success.

- Access to advanced coursework and pathways: Directors expressed interest in routinely reporting which CTE pathways and AP courses students actually enroll in (not just which are available) and in including a simple pathway-by-pathway enrollment breakdown in board briefs.

- Special education: Board members asked for Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) data — the percentage of students with IEPs included in general education settings (the district discussed aiming in ranges approaching an 80% target where appropriate). Staff said LRE placement can be fluid and recommended using the November 1 federal snapshot and IEP placement categories (LRE 1–3) as a reporting source.

- Attendance and chronic absence: Directors pressed that attendance and chronic absence be reported in disaggregated form so the board can track who is chronically absent and whether interventions are closing gaps.

- Communications metrics: The board debated whether to keep Skyward login counts and other digital engagement measures in the accountability plan. Staff warned raw login totals can be deceptive (one parent may log in many times). Directors asked staff to explore a more meaningful metric — for example, percentage of families with at least one unique login or conference/survey response rates — and to keep ‘‘outreach’’ counts that indicate how many districtwide notifications were sent. Staff explained the meaning of sample numbers shown in the packet (attendance calls, emergency messages and outreach notifications) and said they would clarify definitions in the board brief.

- Recruitment, retention and exit surveys: Directors said the primary recruitment/retention metric should be vacancy and turnover rates rather than counts of recognition events. They asked staff to report trends from exit surveys (qualitative themes and aggregate trends) and to confirm whether exit surveys are anonymous or allow follow-up conversations; staff agreed to confirm and to bring trend analysis to the board.

- Board reporting from schools and educator/student voice: Directors sought more authentic educator and student voices in school reports — for example, short student or paraeducator spotlights, video excerpts, or a sample of student work — while staff cautioned about exposing staff and students to bypassing normal communication channels. The superintendent’s staff offered to pilot formats that preserve principals’ leadership while allowing periodic first‑hand educator or student contributions.

- Standard operating procedures and board self-assessment: Directors discussed timing for the board self-assessment and standard operating procedure (SOP) review. The board asked that the self-assessment be conducted at the conclusion of each school year (rather than a calendar-year timing) and recommended reviewing SOPs following the seating of newly elected members. Staff noted that adding this timing language is a minor policy change that can be done before first reading in February.

What the board asked staff to do

1) Propose a short list of student-growth and achievement metrics, including growth percentiles and course pass rates, and explain data sources and a recommended frequency for reporting. 2) Provide disaggregated snapshots (race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status) for graduation rates, algebra/AP enrollments and pass rates, chronic absence, suspensions and LRE placement by the June reporting window. 3) Clarify Skyward/login, outreach and attendance notification definitions and recommend refined parent-engagement measures (for example, percent of families engaged, conference rate, survey response rate). 4) Confirm exit-survey anonymity and provide an aggregate trend analysis of leaving reasons; report any notable patterns to the board. 5) Pilot options for adding authentic educator or student voice to school reports (video, quote, or brief spotlight) and propose a format that preserves principals’ role while allowing first-hand perspectives.

Context and next steps

District staff said they will return with data snapshots and proposed measures between now and June. Directors emphasized that the board’s request is for usable, actionable indicators that help them identify where inequities exist and measure progress in closing gaps. Staff warned that adding disaggregation increases workload; board members asked to be notified if collection or reporting would create unsustainable burdens.

Ending: The board closed the agenda item after agreeing on the major data requests. Staff will bring drafts and recommended measures to the instructional council for further refinement before presenting final language in the June accountability plan update.