Verona board debates Act 95 waiver criteria for guaranteed UW admission; no final decision

The Verona Area School District Board and administrators spent extensive workshop time reviewing how to approach a Department of Public Instruction waiver under Act 95, the state law that guarantees UW System admission for top‑tier students and requires districts to provide tie‑breaking criteria when more students meet the GPA threshold than slots allow.

Amy (administration) explained the statutory framework and the waiver process. Under Act 95 the initial ranking is by GPA at the end of 11th grade; districts that exceed the top‑5% or top‑10% thresholds must submit a tie‑breaking method in advance to DPI. Administrators said Verona’s current junior class has about 477 students, meaning the top 5% would be roughly 24 students and the top 10% roughly 48. Staff said that if 23 students dropped below their current 4.0 GPAs the district could avoid a waiver this year, but the current trajectory makes use of a waiver likely.

Administrators pointed to an existing administrative rule used for the district’s Academic Excellence award (Administrative Rule 434p), which uses GPA then composite ACT score then total credits earned as tie breakers. The board discussed whether to reuse or adapt that order for Act 95, and raised alternatives including: total number of high‑school credits earned; a count of advanced coursework (AP, dual credit, honors, capstones); the district‑administered ACT composite; or a composite “wildcat score” that aggregates multiple elements.

Board members raised equity concerns. Trustees noted that ACT preparation and multiple retakes can advantage students with resources, and that access to AP and dual‑credit courses has historically been unequal. Several trustees also said any criteria should prioritize measures that reflect students’ coursework and challenge rather than ability to pay for test prep or summer classes.

Discussion points the board considered: • Using total credits earned as a neutral measure but acknowledging students could game the metric by stacking easier courses. • Counting advanced courses (AP, dual credit, capstones) to measure rigor, balanced against access inequities and the difficulty of defining “advanced” across departments. • Using a district ACT administration as a single, equitable test administration if a test score is included; some trustees opposed relying on ACT results. • The possibility of a composite or “wildcat” score that bundles academics, advanced coursework and co‑curricular measures — but trustees noted DPI requires clear definitions in the waiver.

Administrators emphasized timing constraints: the district must submit the waiver language to DPI before it would be needed for summer selections, and course selection for the next year is already underway; therefore staff recommended adopting a clear, narrowly scoped set of criteria for this year and returning to broader strategic changes (weighted grades or systemic shifts) later if the board wishes.

No formal motion was made. Staff and board members agreed to refine options: administrators will draft a waiver application using a limited set of criteria for the current year and return with cost, equity and communications implications. Board members asked that the administration consider applying the district’s existing Academic Excellence tie‑breaking order as a starting point and present concrete options, including how each option would affect the current junior cohort.