Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District reaches 'significantly exceeds expectations' on DPI report card; leaders explain assessment renorming
Summary
DPI released school and district report cards Nov. 11. Middleton-Cross Plains Area School District earned 'significantly exceeds expectations' at the district level (84.4), with Middleton High School moving to 'significantly exceeds' for the first time. Presenters explained AIMSweb Plus renorming and DPI weighting changes that affect comparability.
District leaders presented the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) report card results at the Dec. 1 Middleton-Cross Plains Area School District Board meeting, explaining what changed in the calculation and what the district’s results mean.
Dr. Marybeth Polisi and other directors told the board the DPI released district and school report cards on Nov. 11. The report cards include four priority areas — achievement, growth, target group outcomes and on‑track to graduation — combined by weighting that varies with student demographics. Presenters explained recent changes: renorming of AIMSweb Plus by Pearson, addition of test participation flags for schools with below 95% participation, and new rating score ranges developed by the 2025 Report Card Standard Setting Committee. They stressed that report cards aggregate multiple measures and are one indicator among many.
For the first time the district reached the highest overall rating level, "significantly exceeds expectations," with an overall district score of 84.4 and priority scores reported as: achievement 87.7, growth 85, target group outcomes 74.2 and on track to graduation 89.3. At the school level, Middleton High School moved up to "significantly exceeds expectations," Clark Street to "exceeds expectations," and Glacier Creek and other schools saw increases in several priority areas.
Board members asked technical questions about how DPI weights the priority areas and whether the district uses raw student‑level data or DPI’s weighted outputs when drilling down (presenters said both; principals use student-level data and local assessment series like STAR and AIMSweb Plus for diagnostic work). Presenters also explained that some report‑card components (for example, attendance and criminal infractions that occur on campus) are drawn from non‑assessment state reporting systems and that those items are noted on the report card rather than directly deducting points.
The presentation was informational; board members asked for follow‑up opportunities to review student‑level data and requested staff assistance for deeper analysis of value‑added calculations.
