PSD monitoring report: literacy gains and higher graduation rates, but gaps persist for students with IEPs and ELLs
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Chief Institutional Effectiveness Officer Dwayne Schmitz presented the DE‑1 monitoring report showing K–5 literacy gains, an all‑time graduation rate high (class of 2025 at 89%), rising concurrent enrollment and CTE participation, but continuing achievement gaps for students with IEPs, English‑language learners and economically disadvantaged students.
Dwayne Schmitz, the district’s chief institutional effectiveness officer, presented the DE‑1 monitoring report to the board on Feb. 10, highlighting both strong systemwide outcomes and persistent subgroup gaps.
"PSD students outperform state and national peers in reading and math achievement, exceeding targets and sustaining academic excellence," Schmitz told the board, pointing to a roughly quarter‑ to third‑standard‑deviation shift to the right on achievement curves across assessments. He credited the K‑5 literacy adoption with measurable gains in early reading and cited that intervention systems produced catch‑up growth in several schools.
The report celebrated the Class of 2025 reaching an 89% graduation rate — a local record — and strong statewide comparative results in concurrent enrollment and career‑technical education participation. Schmitz noted that some schools demonstrated the 0.2 growth effect size identified as the district’s catch‑up target for students needing additional support.
At the same time, Schmitz emphasized persistent inequities: students with IEPs, English‑language learners and students eligible for free or reduced lunch continue to lag in absolute achievement and graduation measures compared with district averages and peer districts. He also flagged attendance (district reported 90.6% overall) and mental‑health/connectivity indicators from a student 'connections' survey as concerning signals tied to graduation risk.
Board members asked for disaggregated numbers and for follow‑up data — for example, CTE participation by students with IEPs — to evaluate how programs are serving high‑needs students. Directors also linked the monitoring findings to the budget conversation, pressing staff to identify core investments (such as curriculum and family liaison work) to protect from reductions.
The administration made the full monitoring report and underlying dashboards available on the district website and said they will continue to publish school‑level data.
Next steps: Board members requested additional breakdowns (CTE participation for students with IEPs/504 plans, attendance‑graduation correlations) and signaled continued attention to strategies that close internal and external gaps.