Tempe Elementary review: district average 79.98 keeps schools at a B as staff outline paths to raise scores
Loading...
Summary
District staff told the governing board the Tempe Elementary district averaged 79.98 under Arizona’s A–F system, keeping it in the B range, and detailed how proficiency, growth, EL measures and bonus points affect school letter grades and where gains and losses occurred.
Doctor Ashley Hargrave, the district’s director of school leadership and federal programs, told the Tempe Elementary School District governing board on Nov. 19 that the district’s average total points were 79.98 under Arizona’s A–F accountability model, placing the district in the B range.
Hargrave said the state’s letter-grade calculation is based on a 100-point model: 30% proficiency, 50% growth, up to 10% for English learners (EL), and 10% for acceleration and readiness. She explained proficiency multipliers (partially proficient = 0.6; proficient = 1.0; highly proficient = 1.3), the state’s two calculation methods (single-year snapshot and a stability model) and the 95% testing participation requirement that can reduce proficiency scores if not met. “This is our average, total points as a district … The average is 79.98, which puts us squarely at a b,” Hargrave said.
Why it matters: the district’s mix of scores and bonus-point opportunities — including EL proficiency/growth, special-education inclusion bonuses and acceleration/readiness points tied to third- and eighth-grade outcomes — shapes each school’s letter grade and affects funding reputationally and operationally.
Hargrave gave recent trend data: district proficiency rose from about 14.21 in 2022 to roughly 16.3 most recently, while the growth component was near 47.5 in 2022 and reported at 44.98 for 2025. She cautioned that growth is measured relative to peer groups, so shifts in the state average can alter local standing even if local performance is steady. On EL results, Hargrave said EL proficiency has been relatively steady but EL growth declined this year, in part because the state average changed.
Board members pressed staff for clarification. President Windsor asked whether a previously used student-growth target remained in the calculation; Hargrave confirmed that measure was removed for the 2025 school year and the growth score now relies on student growth percentile comparisons. Board members also asked about the district’s small share of highly proficient students — Hargrave said highly proficient students represent a small portion (districtwide under about 5%) and offered to provide more granular counts.
Staff and board discussed chronic absenteeism as a driver of score changes. District staff described separate attendance measures and said the district’s 'everyday labs' attendance push once produced a roughly 10% reduction in chronic absenteeism on certain campuses, but that small backward shifts can cause schools to lose points. Staff also explained a separate "non-fundable" funding rule the state now applies when a student misses 10 consecutive days: the state can retroactively withhold funding for that window even when absences are excused, a process the district is tracking for about 30 students who recently fell into that category.
What’s next: Hargrave said staff will continue auditing special-education inclusion practices — a prior special-education audit recommended reviewing inclusion — and will return with more data on highly proficient counts and trends. The board had no formal action tied to the presentation; the item led to questions and follow-up requests from members.
