Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Data topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Data review: Portland shows gaps in proficiency, high absenteeism and uneven grading practices
Summary
District data presented to the committee showed variation across high schools (17‑point ELA gap, 14‑point math gap), chronic high‑school absenteeism near 39%, a reported four‑year graduation rate of 77% and a 68% immediate postsecondary enrollment (fall 2024); staff flagged grade‑scale inconsistency and backend data crosswalks as a barrier to reliable comparisons.
Hailey Diedrichsen, senior director of data and technology, gave the committee a baseline academic report on Sept. 8 showing gaps across high schools and data‑quality challenges.
Diedrichsen said no high school met a 70% proficiency target in reading and that the district saw a 17‑percentage‑point gap between its lowest and highest performing high schools for ELA, and a 14‑point gap in math. She reported chronic high‑school absenteeism at nearly 39%, and a four‑year graduation rate of 77% (noting state‑certified numbers were still pending). Diedrichsen also cited National Student Clearing House data showing 68% of graduates enrolled in postsecondary education in fall 2024, with lower persistence for students who enroll in two‑year institutions.
On data systems, Diedrichsen described structural challenges: different buildings use different grading scales (A–F, 100‑point, and 1–4 proficiency scales), and the district relies on backend crosswalks in Infinite Campus that introduce imprecision in grade reporting and transcript appearance. That imprecision complicates comparisons and tracking of individual students across schools.
Board members asked for further analysis and for staff to propose strategies to make grades and transcript reporting more comparable across buildings. Staff offered credit‑recovery options and alternative programs to help students who fall behind, and said student‑support teams coordinate interventions when attendance or behavior put graduation at risk.
Next steps: staff will explore back‑end corrections, propose consistent grading/reporting approaches and return with recommendations to the committee.
