Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Superintendent presents December diagnostic results, flags junior-high concerns and consultant use
Summary
The district superintendent presented December NWEA diagnostic projections, explained they compare August pretests to December post-tests, cautioned projections will change after April testing, highlighted weak growth in grades 7–8, and said most consultant and staff-development funds come from federal dollars.
The superintendent presented interim academic data to the NORTH PIKE SCHOOL DIST board, saying the December diagnostic compares students’ August pretests with December post-tests and produces projections for state testing.
“This growth is referring to essentially a pretest and a posttest,” the superintendent said, explaining the district gave the pretest in August and the post-test in December and will re-test in April. He cautioned that December projections can change after three more months of instruction.
He walked trustees through grade-level examples, saying, for instance, “3rd grade under teacher A… 16 of those students showed growth when they took it in August, 5 did not.” He said the diagnostic software projects how students might score on the state exam but does not show last year’s state-test performance or the classroom composition that affects outcomes.
The superintendent identified NWEA as the district’s diagnostic and said the district uses outside consultants — “Kids First,” the “Excellence Group,” Gary Bailey’s group and a performance-based vendor at the high school — with Kids First working primarily with grades 3–8. He told trustees the bulk of consultant and staff-development funding comes from federal allocations that must be spent on staff development, not from general district operating funds.
Trustees asked how the district will measure consultants’ effectiveness. The superintendent said final judgment awaits state-test results but promised to return in a later meeting with more detailed, teacher-level information — including how many students entered a classroom already performing at higher levels so the board can interpret projections accurately. He also warned that proposed legislative changes to accountability and cut scores could alter how this year’s projections translate into letter grades.
The superintendent closed his presentation by saying this was an overview and that he would bring more detailed data, anonymized where appropriate, at future meetings.
