Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Academic Performance Data topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Concord‑Carlisle committee debates MCAS, AP and how to present subgroup data
Summary
District leaders presented academic results — DESE percentile rankings, MCAS trends, AP and SAT performance — and described efforts to increase access to advanced coursework for underrepresented students. Committee members pressed for clearer cohort and subgroup reporting while protecting small‑group privacy.
District staff spent the largest portion of the meeting reviewing recent academic data and district strategies to widen access to honors and AP classes.
Shelley, who led the presentation of DESE and internal data, said Concord‑Carlisle continues to rank highly in the state: "We are in the 90th percentile" in overall high‑school comparisons, she said, and described AP performance — 733 AP exams taken in 2025 with 85% scoring 4 or 5 — and SAT percentiles. At the same time, she and high‑school leaders acknowledged a nationwide dip in standardized results since 2020 and stressed the district’s focus on supporting students’ access to advanced coursework with additional scaffolds and professional development for teachers.
Committee members sought more clarity about how the district reports subgroup performance without exposing students in small cohorts. Chair Andrew and other members asked whether the percentages presented could be tied to absolute counts or cohort tracking so the committee could interpret whether reported gains represented meaningful numbers of students or smaller sample sizes. "We wanted to show that we are making gains in representation of those students," said Brian, a high‑school leader, but he and Shelley explained that some subgroup counts are small and DESE suppresses low counts for privacy.
Special‑education and assessment staff urged caution about MCAS interpretation. Angel Charles explained that students who take the MCAS‑Alt are recorded differently in statewide reporting and that the alternative assessment can adversely affect subgroup accountability measures. Committee members also asked about MCAS participation trends and whether the state’s evolving graduation‑requirement policy changes (removing MCAS as a graduation requirement) had altered student incentives to take the test; presenters noted that the state still uses MCAS for accountability and that participation rates can trigger corrective actions.
Members asked for technical follow‑ups: more accessible cohort visualizations from the district’s OpenArchitects data platform, clearer explanations of DESE reporting rules, and ways to present percentages alongside an anonymized signal of subgroup size so the public can better understand the scale behind the percentages. Presenters agreed to return with more detailed cohort analyses and guidance on how to share subgroup data while protecting privacy.
