Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accountability Reporting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District staff detail school report card metrics; Miss Goff points to strong graduation and high-school success figures
Summary
Miss Goff explained state-mandated school report card components, described limits in the current year's assessments (a new biology test lacking item-level data and an Algebra I pathway change), and cited district figures including an 87.2% college/career-ready rate and a 95.5% high-school student success metric as discussed during the work session.
Miss Goff presented the districts interpretation of state-required school report cards and walked the board through the major components: academic achievement (SC Ready and other state tests for grades 3—), student progress (growth targets and median/stretch percentiles), preparing-for-success metrics (science and social studies), graduation rates and College and Career Readiness measures.
She explained technical details that can make the state pages confusing: subgroup points (for example, English learner points) are reallocated if a subgroup does not meet a minimum size threshold; some assessment categories are not reported every year depending on standards and assessment schedules; and a state value-added component is calculated with methods she described as difficult to predict.
On specific data, the transcript records Miss Goff stating "87.2% of our students are graduating with either the recognition as college or career ready," and later mentioning a high-school Student Success rating recorded as 95.5% in the presentation. She also noted that a new biology assessment this year did not produce domain-specific results for teachers, limiting the districts ability to identify performance by subtopics, and that Algebra I testing will shift in the states course-pathway schedule so its effect on the report card will change next year.
Miss Goff said student progress is the districts most challenging area and described the growth models elements: an individual students median annual target, a stretch-growth target for accelerated catch-up, and a state-level value-added calculation. She said the district uses diagnostic tools (for example, i-Ready) and targeted interventions (flex grouping, credit recovery) to support students mid-course so they can meet growth and on-track targets.
Board members asked for additional data pulls (for example, number of students who say they do not plan to attend college and counts used to compute subgroup points). Staff offered to provide those data on request. The presentation closed with staff noting overall district strength in achievement, graduation and college/career readiness while signaling student progress as the primary area for further work.
