District dashboard shows persistent math shortfall; board urged to probe causes

District staff presented the California Dashboard and explained how the dashboard uses color‑based indicators that emphasize year‑to‑year progress rather than raw scores. The presenter noted the science indicator is newly reported this year and reminded the board that the dashboard uses last year’s test scores.

During the presentation, the district pointed to math as a significant area of concern: the presenter said the district is “well below” proficiency in mathematics and described point gaps (the presenter referenced being more than 100 points below a proficiency threshold in some measures). “Math is not good and English is not good but math is worse than English,” the presenter said, underscoring the relative severity of math performance.

The presenter explained the dashboard color methodology (progress from prior year can produce a yellow or green rating even when raw scores remain below the proficiency threshold) and walked members through school‑level and district‑level slides. Board members asked for clarification on what the raw point thresholds mean and how the dashboard maps raw scores into the standard met/standard nearly met categories.

District staff suggested resources for deeper comparison—placing local scores alongside county and neighboring districts—and said a December board report contains a compilation of comparative data for Sonoma, Mendocino and Lake counties. Trustees requested clearer legends and context on the district website so the public can interpret colors versus raw score distances from proficiency.

No formal actions were taken; the dashboard review concluded with the board asking staff for follow‑up explanations and potential strategies to address math performance.