Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data And Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trainer urges trustees to use subpopulation data, not simple campus comparisons, when interpreting A–F grades
Summary
Trainer explained how A–F campus and district grades combine academic achievement, relative performance and gap‑closing measures and encouraged trustees to compare campuses to peers with similar demographics rather than to one another.
Trainer Nicole Bentley explained the mechanics behind A–F grading and told trustees the relative performance measure compares campuses to similar peers across the state rather than directly to each other. She said trustees should request relative performance scores and subpopulation breakdowns to make fair, apples‑to‑apples comparisons of campus performance.
Trustees discussed practical examples: mobility, the share of emergent bilingual students and Title I concentration can make direct side‑by‑side comparisons misleading. Bentley advised trustees to use available state data tools and subpopulation slices to understand which student groups are driving low averages and whether targeted interventions are in place.
