Sheboygan district says state report-card changes complicate year-to-year comparisons as some scores rise
Summary
District staff told the board that statewide report-card methodology changes mean 2024–25 scores establish a new baseline; the district reported 19 schools saw score increases and elementary math proficiency rose to 50.7% (up 3.7 points), while growth now carries roughly 44.7% of the accountability weight.
District data leads Kelly and Rachel briefed the Sheboygan Area School District board on the district’s school report cards and state assessment results and warned that methodological changes at the state level make direct year-to-year comparisons difficult.
"Our overall score continues to meet expectations," one presenter said, while emphasizing that the state panel updated rating-category ranges and that the 2024–25 cycle uses two years of achievement data rather than the usual three because of last year’s assessment changes.
Officials explained three key changes: updated score-range thresholds that determine 1–5 ratings, a temporary use of two years of achievement data to compensate for test-tool changes, and a norming shift that aligns achievement and target-group outcomes to growth measures. District staff said growth now accounts for about 44.7% of the overall accountability score while achievement represents approximately 5.3% of the weight.
Despite those caveats, the presentation highlighted local improvements: 19 schools saw their overall scores rise and five schools moved up an accountability category. Elementary Forward Exam math proficiency rose by 3.7 percentage points districtwide — from 47.0% to 50.7% for grades 3–5 — and ELA proficiency for the same grades increased by 2.4 points to 45.6%. Middle-school math proficiency moved up by 1.2 points to 43.7%, and ELA for grades 6–8 rose to 43.7%.
The district also reported college-and-career-readiness figures for the class of 2025: 781 students were represented in the data and 79% met the district’s career-ready measures; roughly 60% of seniors took an advanced-standing course.
Board members asked for clearer ways to explain recalibration to the public and for more apples-to-apples comparables; presenters referenced a third-party ECRA Group analysis that identifies nine peer districts based on enrollment and economic-demographic bands and said the district still outperformed peers on many indicators.
Several board members and the superintendent expressed concern that norming and growth-heavy weighting could obscure achievement gains and complicate public communication. District staff recommended using comparables and multiple measures — including cohort tracking and college-and-career indicators — when discussing results with stakeholders.
The board did not take an action on state policy but accepted the presentation and discussed next steps for public messaging and curriculum implementation.
