USD 383 presents six indicators of success, flags new state cut scores

District administrators presented the district’s strategic “indicators of success” to the Manhattan‑Ogden USD 383 Board of Education, summarizing measures from early learning screenings through postsecondary success and noting changes to state assessment cut scores that will affect interpretation of 2024–25 results.

Andrea (last name not specified), district administrator, introduced the indicators and framed the district’s priorities around data‑driven decision making, equity and consistent implementation across buildings. Lucas Shivers, director overseeing elementary sites, described the district’s use of FastBridge screening and progress‑monitoring tools in pre‑K through third grade. He said the screening program supports the district’s multi‑tiered systems of support (MTSS) by identifying students who need early intervention.

“We screen all of our students three times annually,” Lucas said, describing benchmark windows in fall, winter and spring and the use of frequent progress monitoring for students receiving interventions.

Elizabeth (early learning lead) explained that the district uses IGDIs for ages 3–5 and that the program emphasizes developmentally appropriate screening and targeted small‑group interventions for four‑year‑old students. Shannon Molt, director of student services, described state summative and interim assessments and how performance levels will be revised for 2024–25. “Sometimes there's confusion and people think that a level 2 is actually failing when it is not,” Molt said, clarifying the state’s performance‑level descriptors and adding that the Kansas Department of Education plans to release new cut scores around Sept. 1.

Administrators also reviewed the Kansas Communities That Care survey for social‑emotional indicators, district graduation‑rate tracking and postsecondary success measures. They described internal data practices — including interims and short “mini” tests provided by the state — used to diagnose gaps and drive professional learning. The presentation noted that some administrative indicators were developed when different assessment tools were in use and suggested the board consider whether indicator language should be updated to reflect new curricula and local assessment mixes.

Board members raised questions about the measures and the state cut‑score change. Greg and other trustees suggested the district continue aligning local predictor assessments with state outcomes and asked the administration to report back with clarifications when cut scores are published. Administrators said they plan to incorporate the indicators into district leadership team (DLT) work and MTSS alignment days and to share building‑level data with principals so teams can match interventions to need.

No board action was taken on the indicators; administrators invited feedback and said they would return with refinements as the state releases cut‑score details.