Board members reviewed the accreditation peer‑review exit report and discussed how visiting teams scored district and school systems. Justin Perintoni, district staff member, summarized the scoring methodology and the narrative findings.

Perintoni explained the charting convention reviewers used: red indicated a standard not met, yellow (adequate) meant the standard was being met largely at a school level, green denoted the standard was met at a district/systems level, and blue signified a practice reviewers recommended other districts “steal.” He described the scoring process — reviewers individually score evidence after the visit, the team chair aggregates results and teams submit narrative summaries and evidence citations.

Trustees asked for additional context and comparisons. One board member asked to compare this report with the district’s accreditation report from five years earlier to show trends. Perintoni agreed to provide a crosswalk documenting standard changes and a comparison where feasible, noting some items are not directly comparable because standards and team membership changed.

Why it matters: The peer review identifies district strengths and areas needing systemwide strategies rather than only school-level practice; trustees highlighted instruction and learning (instructional methods) as an area where district-level approaches may need strengthening.

Ending: The board asked staff to schedule presentations of the peer-review findings over several CAL meetings and to produce a comparative analysis with prior accreditation findings.