District unveils local climate survey and interim student assessments; results show mixed perceptions and early areas for improvement

Talbot County Public Schools staff presented a new local school‑climate survey and preliminary instructional assessment results during the Jan. 13 work session, saying the local instrument is intended to give building leaders more timely, actionable feedback than the state’s Maryland School Survey.

Supervisor of Data and Accountability Lee Neild told the board the Maryland School Survey is administered once per year and “we don’t get the results until the following school year,” and that the district therefore developed a condensed local climate survey mirroring MSDE domains so principals can act during the school year. The local instrument adds a neutral response option and aligns topics into four domains: community, environment, relationships and safety.

Why it matters: school‑climate results factor into where district leaders focus interventions for student engagement, attendance and safety; the district also uses interim academic screeners (MAP Growth and DIBELS) to identify students needing intervention earlier than statewide accountability data allows.

Survey design and early trends

- Design: Staff said the local survey replicates the Maryland School Survey structure but is condensed (to reduce instructional disruption), mirrors MSDE reporting procedures where possible, and includes items that avoid MSDE's secure bank to prevent security conflicts. Responses were converted to a numeric scale analogous to a 1–10 continuum where higher values indicate more favorable responses.

- Early patterns: Neild summarized a recurring pattern in student responses across administrations: a relatively higher score on the year’s first administration, a dip on the second administration, and a rebound on the next year’s first administration. Educator responses, he said, generally trended upward across administrations. Neild cautioned the board that many averages fall in the neutral to lower side of the scale and therefore represent areas for improvement.

- Notable flags: Staff identified areas where student trend lines did not match other domains as outliers that warrant building‑level follow up. Under the safety domain, some student items showed downward trends that staff flagged as concerning and planned to examine in more detail.

Attendance and chronic absenteeism

District staff showed attendance comparisons for the first four months of the school year and said the system can track attendance codes (excused, doctor’s note, suspension, etc.). Neild and other staff noted chronic absenteeism is a fluid measure (it depends on days enrolled and absence reasons) and that the district monitors students who are trending toward chronic absenteeism each marking period to target interventions.

Academic screeners: MAP and DIBELS

- MAP Growth: Staff described MAP Growth as a nationally normed, growth‑oriented assessment used in grades where the district has implemented it; the district is expanding grade coverage and compared beginning‑of‑year percentages by performance level against earlier years where available.

- DIBELS: The district uses DIBELS for early literacy screening (K–3) and to meet statutory screening and parent‑notification requirements (Senate Bill 734 was cited as the legislative requirement for K–3 screening). Staff said DIBELS midyear results were still being completed and that midyear‑to‑beginning‑of‑year comparisons (same students) will offer the most actionable growth information.

How staff will use the data

Presenters said the local climate tool and interim academic measures will be used together in regular principal and department reviews to surface targeted interventions — for example, identifying schools where student perceptions decline or where attendance or discipline data suggest intensified supports are needed. The district also uses a data platform that can drill down from district‑level trends to individual student records to support case management, early warning monitoring and staff conversations.

Quotes from the meeting

- Lee Neild (Supervisor of Data and Accountability): “We don’t get the [Maryland School Survey] results until the following school year.”

- Lee Neild (on numeric scale): “Those values are just the average rating between 1‑10, with 10 being the most favorable response and 1 being the least favorable.”

What’s next

Staff said the district will continue to administer the local climate survey periodically through the year, complete the MAP midyear administration and run DIBELS at the end of January; results will be provided to the board in a follow‑up data session for more granular discussion and school‑level follow up.