Sumner School District reports rising assessment ranks, steady attendance gains and 93.4% graduation rate

Sumner School District staff presented an update on the district’s “Future Ready” strategic plan, reporting gains on multiple performance measures and outlining next steps to sustain improvement.

In a presentation to the board, district presenters said the district ranked 11th out of 247 districts using SchoolDigger metrics, an improvement from 17th in 2020. The presenters cautioned that ranking comparisons can be affected by district type (for example, some peer districts are K–8 and do not register high-school opt-outs in their totals).

The district relied on OSPI Smarter Balanced data to show performance across grade bands. Staff explained that the state reports scores including non-tested students as zeros; with zeros included statewide the presenter said ELA passed roughly 70.9% and math 63.3%, while OSPI’s tabulation excluding zeros produced slightly different rates, illustrating how opt-outs and absences affect district-level reporting. The presenter told the board the district also maintains interim assessment blocks that it uses as the best local predictor for students who did not take the state test.

District staff described a testing irregularity at one classroom that led OSPI to invalidate those scores; the district assessment director, Kathleen, said staff were able to capture student scores before they were converted to zeros, and that information was used to guide instruction for the next teachers.

Staff also reviewed progress on several strategic goals: early-grade (K–3) ELA and math trends showed multiple schools meeting or trending toward benchmarks; district mentors supported more than 200 students last year; and advanced-course enrollments stood at about 2,080 students after a recategorization of the course catalog and coordination with CTE. The district reported a 93.4% four-year graduation rate and noted that 6.6% of the cohort did not graduate on time; staff said additional late completers increase the five-year rate.

Board members asked for more detail on opt-outs, testing logistics and internal measures; presenters pointed to practice interim assessments, a 10–12 week testing window and building-level monitoring as the district’s primary tools for responding to data. The presentation packet and the board discussion emphasized continuous monitoring under district policies 0300 and 0700.

The board did not take formal action at the study session; presenters identified next steps including targeted supports for schools with uneven growth, continued expansion of mentorship and attendance-team work, and periodic drills on implementing interventions aligned with the strategic plan.