District presents student assessment gains, recommends targeted supports and PD for math and early-career teachers

Sheridan County School District #3 staff presented fall-to-spring assessment results and recommended targeted coaching, clarified intervention procedures and proposed grading-policy alignment at a special board meeting.

The presenter, identified in the meeting as a district staff member overseeing curriculum and assessment, told trustees that the district uses three assessments—Acadience (reading screener required by the state), MAP Growth (adaptive, computer-based growth measure) and the state assessment (referred to in the meeting as YTAP/WIPOC)—to triangulate reading and math performance for grades K–10.

The presenter said the district saw measurable gains in reading: Acadience and curriculum-implementation data showed increases in proficiency and reductions in the share of students in the “well below” category from the prior year. On a draft of state results the presenter shared, 2022–23 proficiency for grades 3–10 had been 54 percent proficient or advanced and the district projected 65 percent proficient or advanced for the most recent year; the share in the “well below” category declined from 24 percent to 17 percent. The presenter emphasized use of Branching Minds to combine data and assign students to tiers for intervention: tier 1 (no additional support), tier 2 (some support) and tier 3 (explicit, systematic support). The presenter said a tier 3 student typically requires about 45 minutes per day of intensive intervention.

Math results were mixed, the presenter said. The district implemented a new K–Algebra 1 math curriculum in year 1 and reported that most grade-level groups were at above-average percentiles on MAP Growth; the presenter said 16 percent of grade-level groups were at average achievement, 58 percent above average and 25 percent well above average. However, strands tied to operations and algebraic thinking were relatively lower and will be a focus of professional development next year.

The presenter listed six priority observations and next steps for the coming school year: continue coaching and targeted support for the new ELA curriculum; offer focused professional learning on math discourse, operations and algebraic thinking; increase differentiation in core math instruction; clarify roles and processes for identifying and documenting interventions; reinforce instructional routines (do nows, exit tickets) via walk-throughs; and align secondary grading practices with mastery of priority standards.

On staffing and implementation, the presenter noted a sizeable cohort of early-career teachers—about 39 percent of instructional staff had 1–4 years in the district and roughly 40 percent had five years or less—and recommended targeted coaching for these early-career teachers. The presenter described summer-school supports provided to students identified in red or yellow tiers: a 16-day program offering one-on-one instruction, with virtual and in-person options.

Board members asked clarifying questions about assessment categories (the presenter explained the difference between 504 plans and individualized education program [IEP] services) and about pacing of newly adopted curricula. The presenter said the district expects multi-year curriculum adoption timelines (about three years for full confidence) and reported the phonics program was in its third year of implementation with strong fidelity in most grade levels.

The presentation closed with recommendations on grading: the presenter recommended a review of secondary grading policies to better align grades with demonstrated proficiency on priority standards and suggested a student-facing learning tracker to increase transparency with families.

The board did not take formal policy action on the curriculum items during the special meeting; discussion concluded with the district moving into other agenda items and later into executive session on personnel.