Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Report Cards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Northland Pines rated "exceeds expectations" on new DPI report card; board urged to look past single score
Summary
District staff told the Northland Heights Board of Education Nov. 17 that the Wisconsin DPI 2024–25 report card gave Northland Pines an overall score of 71.8, an "exceeds expectations" rating, and emphasized that new norming and weights mean the summary number is not directly comparable to past years.
At the Nov. 17 Northland Heights Board of Education meeting, district presenter Sue McKay reviewed the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction’s 2024–25 school report cards and said Northland Pines received an overall score of 71.8, placing the district in the "exceeds expectations" category.
McKay told the board the state changed how report‑card ratings are normed: "achievement and target growth outcomes are now normed to growth instead of achievement because growth is more stable distribution," and that change — along with multiyear averaging — means this year’s summary scores cannot be compared directly to prior years. She also noted the report cards include some non‑scored data such as course and program listings and certain incidents required by state law.
The presenter gave a priority‑area breakdown: achievement 66.8, growth 65.1, target group outcomes 67.8, and on‑track to graduation 88. McKay said those component scores are weighted based on the district percentage of economically disadvantaged students (42.2%) and explained that different school configurations affect which priority areas apply.
Board members asked for context about specific schools. A board member who identified himself as Scott urged colleagues not to judge a school by the single summary number and to review the underlying measures that produced it, saying some schools’ local circumstances and student populations make year‑to‑year comparisons misleading. Superintendent (speaker S5) echoed that point, saying the district uses local report cards and other assessments to show a fuller picture of student progress.
McKay highlighted local measures the state report card does not capture: 85% of first graders showed STAR math growth; 96% of third graders showed reading growth; students passed 388 dual‑credit courses, saving just under $125,000 in college tuition; and grades 7–12 logged roughly 7,900 hours of community service. She said the district is advancing continuous improvement work — professional learning communities, multilevel systems of support, and targeted instructional frameworks — to raise proficiency and growth.
Board members requested that staff provide further breakdowns for schools with small cohorts and for alternative or charter programs the district works with; McKay agreed to supply more detailed school‑level summaries in board materials and to help explain how the new scoring and weights affect comparisons.
The board did not take formal action on the report‑card material at the meeting. The district’s report‑card summaries and local report cards are posted in the public board documents and on the district website for community review.
