Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves recommended alternative-school accountability model after presentation and questions
Summary
Thomasville City Schools trustees approved the district’s recommended accountability model for the alternative school after a staff presentation comparing three options and a line of board questions about data sufficiency and how scores would affect district and base-school grades.
Mr. Michaelair presented three options for assigning accountability labels to the district’s alternative school and recommended one for the board’s approval. He told the board: “Option A uses the same accountability model as any other school,” while Option B relies on a three-component model emphasizing growth, persistence and achievement, and Option C would be a district-submitted model to the state. The presentation explained how Option A would return scores to base schools if the alternative site generated insufficient data and how Option B is structured to produce a designation even when some components are missing.
Board members pressed staff on the mechanics and consequences. Miss Ellers asked whether return-to-base would affect district calculations and how the state would treat students who tested at the alternative site; Mr. Michaelair responded that the designation and any return-to-base rules depend on which model is chosen and how many students test at the site. Board members asked for clarity on what constitutes “sufficient data”; staff said there is not a single numeric cutoff and that sufficiency depends on the component variance and the numbers testing at the alternative site.
The discussion also included examples of student outcomes under the models: board members noted that many alternative-school students are referred and that some students have used the program for rapid credit recovery. A member asked whether student gains at the alternative site would be captured if students did not test there; staff replied that the testing location determines which site receives the associated scores.
After the presentation and Q&A, a motion to approve the recommended model passed by voice vote. The board did not record individual tallies in the public transcript. The decision will determine how the district reports the alternative school’s performance going forward and whether scores will roll back to base schools when state data are insufficient.
The board moved on to other business and later entered closed session to consult with legal counsel.
