Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grad Score Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State board forms subcommittee to review GradScore at‑risk measure after WestEd analysis
Summary
After a detailed presentation from WestEd showing churn in the GradScore at‑risk counts and correlations with poverty and school performance, the board voted to form a subcommittee chaired by Member Orr to recommend alternatives or confirm the measure and report back (timing to be coordinated).
The State Board of Education voted April 3 to form a subcommittee to investigate the state’s at‑risk identification method after a data presentation from WestEd and APA.
WestEd Senior Research Associate Sean Tanner summarized a multi‑part analysis of the GradScore indicator: (1) year‑to‑year stability and sources of churn (mobility, program eligibility changes and daily updates to the grad score); (2) correlations between the GradScore and student demographics, program eligibility (direct certification, FRL), and performance indicators (SBAC, ACT); and (3) a localized discontinuity/impact analysis showing that services tied to 1‑star school identification produced measurable gains in Clark County (e.g., roughly 0.29–0.33 standard deviation gains in some spring achievement measures) although effects for students labeled at‑risk were smaller and not consistently statistically significant.
Board members from rural and urban districts raised concerns that: the GradScore algorithm is proprietary and not publicly transparent; churn in a small district’s at‑risk count can be large year‑to‑year despite small demographic shifts; Infinite Campus (the vendor) has altered algorithm inputs; and the state and districts need more granular (LEA/school) stability and program‑spending data to plan. Several board members explicitly requested direct‑certification numbers and breakdowns by Medicaid. Sean Tanner and NDE staff said further LEA‑level stability and breakdowns were forthcoming and that the department will expand analysis in the coming months.
After discussion the board voted to create a subcommittee to draft and return a recommendation on alternative indicators (for example, direct certification, FRL, Medicaid certification, or per‑pupil blocks) and on timing for any change. Member Orr agreed to chair the subcommittee; the board granted authority for the chair to appoint additional members and directed the chair to coordinate timing with the board president so the group can report back quickly (possible special meeting or the May 14 meeting). The subcommittee’s scope includes reviewing the efficacy, stability and equity implications of alternate at‑risk measures and producing a recommended path forward.
Board members emphasized they could not unilaterally change statute and that any recommendation may require legislative coordination; Deputy Attorney General David Gardner confirmed the board has discretion to set measures but must balance procurement and funding timelines.
The subcommittee will receive underlying WestEd data and may request additional reporting from Infinite Campus and from districts; it will return a formal recommendation to the full board for an action vote.
