Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the District Performance Report topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
South Windsor School District reports steady performance; meets state targets in ELA, math and science
Summary
At its June 9 meeting the South Windsor Board heard the districts 202425 performance report showing an accountability index near 82/100 and state-target achievement in ELA, math and science; presenters highlighted graduation on-track rates, college-and-career participation and ongoing work on chronic absenteeism.
At the South Windsor Board of Educations June 9 meeting, district staff presented the 202425 District Profile and Performance Report, saying the districts Next Generation Accountability Index is near 82 out of 100 and that the district met the stateestablished target of 75 in English language arts, math and science.
Mrs. Peterson, a district staff member presenting the report, said the ELA academic-growth measure showed about 61% of students met individualized growth targets last year, while roughly 70% of students met math growth targets. She said nearly 98% of ninth graders were on track for graduation and that art access at the high school was 63%.
Why it matters: the state aggregates 12 indicators to create an accountability index intended to show how well districts prepare students for college, careers and life. The districts presenter told the board the figures represent a multi-year recovery from pandemic-related dips and reflect both participation and performance measures.
Key details: the report highlighted that over 95% of 11th and 12th graders participated in at least two college-and-career experiences (AP, IB, CTE or dual credit) and that about 70% of those students met performance benchmarks (SAT/ACT benchmark, AP score of 3+, or equivalent college credit attainment). The presenter also noted chronic absenteeism at about 8% districtwide (the state goal is 5%), and explained that chronic absenteeism counts all absences (excused and unexcused) once a student reaches the 10% threshold for the year.
Board members asked whether any of the results were surprising; Mrs. Peterson said they were consistent with ongoing internal monitoring and that receiving the state report several months after the school year means the data should be viewed as a historical snapshot used alongside more current local measures. On district controls for AI tools, she said student-facing tools are limited to those the district can manage (for example, Google-suite tools) and that staff do not train students to use ChatGPT in class because the district lacks direct controls over that product.
Context and next steps: the presentation covered multiple indicators publicized by the Connecticut State Department of Education and the presenter noted the full profile is available on the CSDE and district websites. Board members requested continued monitoring of chronic absenteeism and noted that more granular comparisons (for example, DUR comparisons) are shared in other district reports.
