Petersburg leaders unpack new Virginia school accountability results, outline curriculum and attendance push
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Petersburg City Public Schools released new state accountability scores under Virginia’s reworked performance and accreditation framework, showed several schools below the state’s 80-point “on track” bar, and described curriculum adoptions, tutoring and data-review steps intended to raise mastery and attendance.
PETERSBURG — District leaders presented results from Virginia’s new School Performance and Support Framework and described a multi-pronged plan to raise student mastery and attendance, saying the state’s split between performance and compliance has produced new distinctions in how schools are identified.
Director of data, Doctor Dikarja Jackson, told the board the state now separates accountability (student performance and growth) from accreditation (compliance). “The new framework has a massive index of growth,” she said while explaining the system’s component weightings and categories for elementary, middle and high schools.
Under the new scoring bands explained to the board, a school must score 90 or above to be “distinguished,” 80–89 to be “on track,” 65–79 is considered “off track,” and below 65 qualifies for “intensive support.” The presentation listed school-level scores for the division: Cool Springs 63.6 (needs support), Lakemont 62.4 (intensive support, accredited with conditions), Pleasant Lane 61.5 (intensive support), Walnut Hill 73.9, Vernon Johns Middle 65.4 (off track), and Petersburg High School 78.9 (off track, accredited with conditions).
Board members pressed staff about one-point margins and state identifications; Jackson and her team said designations can reflect separate technical rules—such as targeted-support (TSI) and comprehensive-support (CSI) flags—that affect categorization and that some schools are subject to three-year cycles. The director said the division can and will pursue appeals where policy or reporting artifacts created apparent inconsistencies.
Superintendent Paul Brown and the academic team outlined the district’s response plan: curriculum adoption, targeted tutoring, quarterly data-review meetings and more instructional support for principals and teachers. Brown described the curriculum work as central: “The curriculum is not for the adults. The curriculum is meant for students,” he said, and urged board members and families to support implementation and consistent use of adopted materials.
The district described concrete component weightings used in the new framework: for elementary schools, mastery counts for 65 percent, growth 25 percent and readiness 10 percent (readiness includes chronic absenteeism and WIDA progress for English learners). Middle and high school calculations differ by grade band and cohort measures; presenters reviewed how mastery, growth and readiness combine to produce the overall score.
District leaders emphasized attendance as a near-term lever for improving the readiness component. The superintendent highlighted existing tutoring (started Oct. 15) and asked principals to revise February plans to align intervention groups with updated interim assessment data so students demonstrate measurable growth by the next reporting window.
On governance and state oversight, board members asked how long MOU (memorandum-of-understanding) status and state support arrangements last; presenters said a division identified for comprehensive support typically remains in a federal/state review cycle for three years before re-evaluation, and that the state is updating MOU processes in light of the new framework.
The presentation closed with a call to action: district staff asked the board to be “cheerleaders” for implementation, urged parents to check consumables and digital materials at home, and promised further follow-up on appeals and targeted supports. The meeting adjourned after a motion and voice vote; the motion carried.