Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accountability Results topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Duplin County Schools board hears mixed 2024–25 accountability results, sets goals to boost graduation and achievement
Summary
On Oct. 7 the Duplin County Schools board reviewed the 2024–25 accountability results showing district‑level proficiency gains but multiple low‑performing school designations; board staff proposed district goals for 2025–26 including a target graduation rate of at least 87% and 10% achievement score improvements.
Duplin County Schools board members on Oct. 7 reviewed the district's 2024–25 accountability results, hearing that district‑level grade‑level proficiency rose in grades 3–8 reading and math even as several schools were designated low performing.
District staff presented the packet of materials that was released publicly Sept. 3 by the State Board of Education. "We are proud to say that our grade level proficiency did increase this year overall at the district level and for all of our major subgroups," said Miss Harvell, a district staff presenter. She noted that "7 of our 13 schools exceeded or met growth" and also that "7 of our schools were designated as low performing," a combination that influenced the district's overall accountability designation.
The presentation included proficiency summaries by school and subgroup, technical guidance on how school performance grades are calculated, and projections tied to district goals. Mr. Smith told the board those goals—adopted by principals and cabinet—include raising the cohort graduation rate to at least 87%, having every school exceed accountability growth, and improving each school's achievement score by 10% in 2025–26. He said school and district improvement plans will be finalized and shared with the board at the November meeting.
Several board members expressed frustration with the state's accountability methodology. A board member who spoke at length criticized the labeling system as an incomplete measure of school work and argued for greater emphasis on growth measures: "Growth to me is so important because ... some kids can go," the member said, urging that growth be more central in the formula. Other board members agreed that the labels can be demoralizing and reiterated that the board will continue supporting staff and schools regardless of state labels.
The board received the presentation and asked staff to return with finalized improvement plans at the November meeting. No formal policy changes were decided at the Oct. 7 session.
