Chandler board studies new metrics framework; plans September planning session to set targets

The Chandler Unified School District governing board spent its Aug. 20 study session reviewing the district’s 2025–26 board metrics and discussing how to align them with the district’s Journey to Excellence strategic plan. Dr. Fletcher presented the current metrics and solicited direction on targets, weighting and whether to map metrics directly to the strategic goals.

Dr. Fletcher described the district’s current board-metric structure of 12 numbered areas and how each is scored on a 1–4 rubric. She reviewed the principal components of metric 1 (equity: student perception, discipline events per capita, enrollment in advanced programs, statewide assessment outcomes, college-ready ACT thresholds and graduation rates) and noted example targets: an 80% positive climate rating on the annual student survey, fewer than 0.1 discipline events per student, 25.5% enrollment in advanced programs, 60% proficiency or year-over-year gains on statewide assessments, 40% college-ready on three of four ACT sections and a 93% graduation target.

Other metrics presented included grade-level proficiency (metric 2), with a target of exceeding the state proficiency percentage by 15 percentage points in at least 75% of subject/grade cells; metric 3 on third-grade reading (62% proficient/highly proficient target plus local Renaissance benchmark growth targets); metric 4 on college and career (scholarship dollars, service-learning hours, AP/IB/dual-credit participation and CTE post‑secondary placement); metric 5 on dropout rate (2.5 percentage points below the state); and metric 6 on graduation (4‑year rate goals and freshman credits targets). Dr. Fletcher recommended including Renaissance benchmark data for grades 7–8 now that junior highs have expanded Renaissance assessments.

Board members generally supported aligning the 12 board metrics to the Journey to Excellence goals and discussed adopting a points or weighting structure so that some goals (for example, learning experiences under Goal 1) could carry more weight. Member Heap advocated a points-based rollup and proposed piloting “stretch” goals — additional targets above baseline expectations — tied to modest incentives. Member Roars raised the need to include stronger financial metrics and suggested tracking IT investment and capital-plan timelines; several members noted the growing pressure on budgets given declining enrollment.

Other discussion points included simplifying or combining overlapping metrics (for example, outside contributions, dollars spent in the classroom, and parent/district-of-choice survey items), ensuring CTE metrics align with state reporting categories, and the transparency of the rubric (some members favored integer scores, others suggested a 1–5 scale with a fifth “stretch” point). Members asked staff to bring cost and feasibility information to the planning session: for example, whether bonuses tied to stretch goals could be funded from district or revenue‑based increases, and how to protect teachers from sudden, large changes in payout methodology.

Dr. Fletcher said staff and cabinet members will prepare metric-mapping options and additional data for a September planning session; the board expects to return to the next regular meeting after the planning session with a recommended set of weighted metrics for approval. Several board members emphasized the importance of involving teachers and principals in designing stretch goals, and Dr. Fletcher noted that teachers and site leaders would be consulted during the September planning meeting.

Provenance: Discussion and presentation began during the meeting’s study session at roughly 00:20:18 and continued through the study session closing remarks around 01:04:37. Evidence includes Dr. Fletcher’s overview of metric definitions and multiple board members’ recommendations for weighting and alignment to Journey to Excellence.