Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates I‑Ready diagnostic and student‑growth measures as part of evaluation and planning
Summary
Trustees discussed adopting I‑Ready diagnostics to set student‑growth baselines and inform interventions, reviewed rising AP participation and scores, and debated how assessment data should factor into superintendent evaluation; no formal policy changes were approved.
During committee reports, trustees reviewed assessment practices and early results tied to a proposed student‑growth plan that would use I‑Ready diagnostics to provide more timely and specific data for classroom instruction and intervention.
District staff said I‑Ready offers more rapid, skill‑specific diagnostics than state assessments, which arrive late for summer planning. One staff member summarized the difference in an analogy: “If the DM‑STEP is like having your pulse checked ... I‑Ready is like having your blood work done,” underscoring the diagnostic depth and utility for targeted instruction.
Trustees noted that this year will largely be about establishing baselines and that meaningful growth targets are more credible once a full cycle of use is complete. The board signaled plans to present an update in December and a fuller proposal in March, and discussed how student‑growth targets might contribute to the superintendent’s evaluation in future years. Several trustees argued the immediate measurable for this year should be producing a coherent plan rather than holding the superintendent to a numeric growth target that may not yet be supportable.
The meeting also highlighted positive Advanced Placement (AP) trends: committee members reported a mean AP score of 3.53, the highest in five years, and an increase in the percentage of students scoring 3 or higher. Trustees discussed barriers that kept a minority of students from taking AP exams (cost, overload, scheduling), noting state reimbursement for qualifying students but also gaps in access for those who do not apply for free‑or‑reduced status.
No new evaluation metric was adopted at the meeting; trustees directed staff and committees to continue collecting data, report back with proposed metrics and targets, and engage educators on implementation and training for I‑Ready.
