Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessment Data topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Keystone Central SD committee asks for building‑level PSSA/Keystone breakdowns as five‑year averages mask variation
Summary
Committee members reviewed a five‑year state data spreadsheet and asked district staff to extract building‑ and performance‑level counts (below basic/basic/proficient/advanced) and produce graphs showing year‑to‑year trends and subgroup growth rather than district averages.
The Keystone Central SD Curriculum Committee spent much of its July 20 meeting examining a five‑year spreadsheet of PSSA and Keystone results and pressing the district for clearer, building‑level breakdowns.
Tyler (speaker S2), who introduced the data, told the committee the spreadsheet shows multi‑year averages that look “flatlined” and that the district will mine the state report to provide counts by performance level and year. “So what we'll do is we'll take a look at that data and break it out,” he said, promising reports that show how many students were below basic, proficient and advanced and trends by building.
District assessment staff later confirmed they can compile those reports. The district assessment coordinator (speaker S8) said the data were compiled earlier with Megan Hall and Dr. Redmond and offered to prepare building‑level and prior‑year comparisons for the next meeting.
Board members pressed for visualizations and more granular evidence of growth. One member noted the spreadsheet currently shows averages rather than discrete proficiency counts and said that makes it hard to know whether a modest increase in the average reflects broad growth or gains concentrated in a small group of students. A district staffer (speaker S5) urged focusing on student growth measures and pointed out that last year all PSSAs were administered digitally, a change that could affect year‑to‑year comparisons.
The committee asked staff to provide: per‑building counts by performance level, year‑to‑year graphs, and subgroup breakouts (for example, IEP/PASA cohorts). Staff agreed to bring the mined state report and visuals to the next curriculum meeting so the board can assess both overall trends and individual building stories.
The committee did not take a formal vote on assessment policy at the session. The next curriculum meeting is scheduled for Aug. 17 at 6 p.m.
