Green Central School presents mission, attendance and learning goals; board hears enrollment, restorative practices and proficiency data

Principal Parker gave a 15–20 minute presentation to the MSAD 52 Board outlining Green Central School's revised mission and vision, staff and program structure, and several data points the school is tracking to measure progress.

The presentation highlighted a staff‑voted motto "learning today, leading tomorrow," a successful food drive (goal of ~350 items, with the presentation noting ~394 items donated), and student ambassador activities. Enrollment was presented as 327 (Oct. 1 count) with a current in‑meeting update to about 330; the principal emphasized that enrollment fluctuates in waves.

Key operational indicators included attendance and chronic absenteeism trends: the school reported a decline in the percentage of students who are chronically absent, and the principal described an active attendance team that meets biweekly to address barriers, including home visits and parent outreach. Special‑education identification rose to about 22 percent of students (including referrals), and Section 504 coverage remained near 4.6 percent, the presentation said.

Academic programs and goals: The school has multi‑year goals to strengthen Tier‑1 instruction, expand inclusion practices, and implement literacy and writing components across K–6. The presentation described restorative practices as a district priority, with a goal of a 10 percent reduction in repeat behavior incidents and increased student survey responses about belonging; staff completed DOE restorative‑practice modules and the school reported progress on incident‑referral metrics.

Assessment data: Parker described NWEA growth goals and cohort tracking; the presentation included cohort charts showing growth and proficiency in early grades and indicated promising gains in some cohorts. Parker noted that growth goals are individualized and that teachers use NWEA data and common assessments to identify areas for focused instruction.

Why it matters: The report provides context for district budgeting and program decisions: administrators and board members discussed staffing (including two full‑time special‑education teachers plus part‑time supports), bus fleet and transportation pressures, and the need to balance instructional priorities with maintenance and capital needs.

Next steps and questions: Board members asked for clarification about how assessment data maps to report‑card grades and whether the district can provide more frequent grading‑period snapshots by school. Administration said common assessments are being prioritized so teachers and the board can better track program implementation and student achievement.