Chandler Unified board debates overhaul of 12 metrics, weighing alignment to Journey to Excellence and stretch incentives

Dr. Fletcher, the districts presenter on metrics, opened the study session with a review of the existing 12 board metrics and the process for updating them, saying the district will "revisit in a planning session in September and really kinda hone in and decide" before bringing any changes back for board approval.

The presentation walked the board through each metric and the current numeric targets. Metric 1 focuses on equity across disaggregated subgroups and includes student perception (target: 80% agree/strongly agree on positive school climate), discipline events per capita (target: under 0.1 events per student), advanced-program enrollment (target: 25.5%), and assessment and graduation measures (examples cited: 60% proficiency or year-over-year improvement; a 93% graduation-rate target). Metric 2 uses prior-year AASA and ACT data with a proposed addition of K7 growth tracking from Renaissance and DIBELS. Metric 3 centers on third-grade reading (62% proficient/highly proficient on AASA and site growth expectations by SGP). Metric 4 aggregates college- and career-readiness indicators including scholarship dollars, AP/IB participation and pass rates, dual-credit hours (district target stated as >22,000 collective hours), and CTE post-graduate placement (80% reported but staff said tracking is increasingly difficult because of follow-up contact challenges).

Board members immediately turned from description to structure. Several members urged mapping the 12 metrics to the four Journey to Excellence strategic goals so the districts priorities roll up to a single, comprehensible score. President Serrano and Member Heap favored a point-based approach that would allocate more weight to student learning goals; Vice President Mazarin and others said goal 1 (learning experiences) should carry the heaviest weight because it is the districts core work. "If our Journey to Excellence goals matter, then we want to have metrics tied with them," a board member said.

Discussion of scoring mechanics included whether to keep a 14 rubric, use integer-only scales for transparency, or add a fifth level as a stretch goal. Several board members and the superintendent raised the idea of offering additional incentives tied to stretch-goal achievement; Superintendent Narducci said staff could model fiscal scenarios and that the district has the option to provide supplemental incentives at year-end if stretch goals are met. Board members stressed that any incentive structure must be fair across school levels and subgroups.

Other suggestions from board members: consolidate overlapping financial and engagement metrics (for example, outside contributions, percentage of dollars spent in the classroom, and parent survey indicators), add clearer financial monitoring (budget status, capital plan adherence, IT spending), and align CTE measures to state reporting standards rather than relying solely on post-graduation phone surveys. Several members asked staff to simplify the visual presentation of the metrics and to bring modeled scoring options to the September planning session.

No formal action or vote was taken during the study session. Staff said they will prepare data and proposed scoring models for the planning session, including options for integer vs. decimal scoring, stretch-goal definitions, and potential incentive calculations. The board scheduled the planning session as the next step to finalize metric language and weights prior to bringing an approval item to a regular board meeting.