District leaders tell board state report card is a weighted measure; focus should be on growth and KPIs

District staff presented the 2024–25 state school report card and urged trustees to interpret the front-page score as a weighted indicator rather than a simple percentage.

Dina (Speaker 10), who led the presentation, cautioned trustees that “the number on the front of that score card is not a percent,” explaining the rating combines achievement, growth, attendance and graduation rates with priority-area weighting that depends on a school’s socioeconomic makeup. She said cut-score recalibration this past summer — a process carried out by a panel of educators — lowered achievement scores across many districts.

Using two schools as examples, Dina explained that a school with higher achievement but lower priority weighting can have a lower overall report-card score than a school with higher priority weighting despite lower raw achievement. She described tools the district uses to drill into the data digitally to identify which students drive growth and where targeted interventions (tier 1–3) are needed.

Trustees asked whether district KPI goals (discussed figures included 68% in language arts and 72% in math) would translate into the single report-card rating; presenters said the weighted state formula and cut-score changes make direct translation difficult, and that longitudinal growth and targeted interventions should be the emphasis. Trustees discussed learning from higher-growth schools in the district (Fairview cited as an example) and aligning KPI work with classroom interventions.

The board did not take action on the report card beyond discussion and requests for further data and follow-up.