Wicomico board cites districtwide gains in Maryland star ratings; one campus remains unrated and one middle school draws targeted interventions

Chair Malone convened the Wicomico County Board of Education work session on the star ratings review and asked staff to summarize how Maryland’s system assigns stars across grade spans. Dr. Briggs and Ms. Hitch led the presentation and described the two components that determine a school’s star rating: 65% of possible points come from achievement measures (ELA and math MCAP results and, at the high‑school level, graduation rate and on‑track measures) and 35% come from school quality and student success indicators such as chronic absenteeism and school surveys.

Ms. Hitch said the star ratings are public and that “96% of the schools in Wicomico County are receiving a 3 or higher rating this year,” and she walked the board through how grade‑span configuration and data‑availability rules (a campus must have 45 points possible) affect whether a campus receives a star at all. She noted that Willard and the evening high school do not receive a star because their grade configurations or missing multi‑year MCAP data make them ineligible for the rating calculation.

Board members pressed staff for specifics about a repeated two‑star middle school identified for ATSI (Additional Targeted Support and Improvement). One board member noted the school’s math proficiency was in single digits and said, “it’s pretty sad when we can say that less than 10% of our students in a school are proficient in mathematics,” and asked what is being done to raise outcomes. Staff described a multi‑pronged response: targeted PLCs (professional learning communities), co‑teaching that places special‑education teachers in general classrooms, tiered interventions during a period called Warrior Time at the middle school, and more frequent formative assessment to enable just‑in‑time supports. Drew and Mr. Brady said these practices aim to keep students in the classroom while delivering small‑group instruction and to drive differentiation based on current classroom data.

Staff also discussed changes in subgroup performance and identification status. Drew said several TSI (Targeted Support and Improvement) student‑group listings were removed this year and that ATSI identifications are determined relatively (based on the bottom 5% of Title I schools), so cutoffs can shift year to year. Board members expressed frustration at how proficiency percentages can appear inconsistent with high graduation rates; staff cautioned that MCAP proficiency and graduation are different measures and that state annual targets and standard‑setting procedures drive the cut scores.

Board members asked staff to provide school‑level follow up, classroom visits to pilot sites, and mid‑pilot reporting where appropriate. Ms. Hitch said staff would provide additional school‑specific materials and share the Maryland Report Card links for public review.

The work session discussion closed with the board acknowledging progress in several measures while keeping a priority focus on the ATI‑identified middle school’s recovery plan and monitoring ongoing interventions.