Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Springfield R‑XII reports APR gains, building spotlights credit PLTs, PBIS and coaching
Summary
Springfield Public Schools presented its APR/MSIP 6 results (composite 76.6, accredited band) and highlighted building-level improvement at Sequiota, Holland and Hickory Hills, attributing gains to professional learning teams, PBIS implementation, data-driven instruction and coaching.
Springfield Public Schools reported a three‑year composite APR score of 76.6 under DESE—s MSIP 6 framework and said the district—s FY24 isolated year score was 56.5. The district presentation on Dec. 17 emphasized year‑over‑year improvements and the district—s strategy to sustain progress through coaching, professional learning teams (PLTs) and targeted implementation of curricula.
Dr. Holt, who presented the APR overview, explained that the district gained the full eight points available for the continuous-improvement metric and that growth bands and category changes in MSIP 6 affected how growth points are allocated. Holt noted that the district—s average daily attendance rose to 22,880 and that the reserve and implementation work support ongoing progress.
Principals and staff from Sequiota Elementary (Principal Abby Hathcock), Holland Elementary (Principal Rachel Tarasch) and Hickory Hills (principal team including Heather Killian) provided "spotlight" presentations. Sequiota described a focused PBIS rollout, common testing procedures, and use of released items and PLT time to align instruction; Sequiota reported earning 95.4% of its APR points across the three‑year band. Holland highlighted safeguarding Tier‑1 instruction time, leveraging specialty teachers for interventions and strengthening language‑rich practices for ELLs. Hickory Hills credited consistent PLT schedules, spiraled curricular practice in math, and incentives/community support for MAP and EOC testing for measurable gains in math and ELA.
During board Q&A, staff explained why percent proficient or advanced (a straight percentage) and the MPI/APR point calculations (which use multiple performance bands and thresholds) can produce different-looking results—for example, proficiency gains do not always translate immediately into higher APR points when the MPI is near category thresholds or subgroup cell sizes are too small to report.
The board asked for the full APR packet and links to data; staff said the full materials were available in the board packet and via posted district links. Trustees praised staff and classroom educators and requested continued transparency in building-level implementation metrics and follow-up on science and subgroup reporting where cell-size suppression (minimum sample sizes) affects point allocations.
What happens next: district staff will continue building-level implementation visits, provide the APR packet and data links to board members, and return with targeted strategies for areas where APR points lag proficiency gains.
