Anson County Schools report gains in student achievement as board questions assessment mix and tutoring access

Superintendent Dr. Thorpe presented district assessment results to the Anson County Board of Education, saying five schools increased achievement this year and several grade levels showed large gains.

The district data presenter noted sixth-grade reading proficiency rose from 23.3% to 48.4% and said other grade-level and subject gains were “really good gains” across a three‑year comparison. Dr. Thorpe highlighted that seven of nine schools met or exceeded growth and that the Anson County Early College posted a 100% four‑year graduation rate this past year.

Why it matters: the district’s performance grades affect state accountability and federal support designations, and board members said they want clarity on how different course pathways are weighted so a school’s composite grade accurately reflects student outcomes.

Board members pressed presenters about how eighth‑grade Math 1 results and high‑school Math 1/Math 3 are combined for accountability. The district presenter explained that accelerated students who take Math 1 in eighth grade feed into a different pathway than students who take Math 1 in high school, and that composite scores are built from several measures including SAT/ACT, graduation rate and course‑level results. “For the composite score for high schools, Math 1 is a score in and of itself, and Math 3 is a score in and of itself,” the presenter said.

The board asked staff to run an academic exercise comparing whether using Math 3 instead of Math 1 would change reported success for some schools. Chair (Speaker 1) asked staff to “go back and look at our work” and report the results.

Board members also discussed subject‑specific changes. Presenters said fifth‑grade science dipped after the state introduced new standards and a new science test, and they expect scores to rebound as teachers and students become familiar with the assessment. “I would expect now since everybody’s seen the test that that would come on back up, next year,” the data presenter said.

Tutoring, English‑learner supports and equitable access drew extended discussion. A board member raised concerns that tutoring shifted from school‑based to district‑based scheduling, limiting access at larger schools and shortening the time students had between tutoring and the EOG test. “Tutoring ended two to three weeks before the EOG tested,” a board member (Speaker 8, later identified in the transcript as Miss Shepherd) said, suggesting that scheduling may have reduced skill retention for struggling learners. She also said participation caps varied by school and cited an estimated eligible range of “11 to 55” students at some sites.

Dr. Thorpe acknowledged the concern and said the district has been pursuing grants for mentors and coaches and is evaluating expanded tutoring options. He noted the district uses IXL for diagnostics and added that the district purchased Lexia last year for multilingual learners; the transcript also records that the district now employs three EL teachers and that some schools have added English as a Second Language courses.

What remains unresolved: board members asked for clearer numbers on how many students were excluded from tutoring at affected schools and for a plan to scale EL supports as the Spanish‑speaking student population grows. Staff agreed to look into participation counts and to report back.

The board’s next steps include receiving the requested comparison of Math 1 vs. Math 3 in the district accountability calculations and follow‑up information on tutoring participation and EL staffing.