Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Reporting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff, data lead and consultant discuss how to aggregate assessment data; public dashboard planned
Summary
Board members debated cohort grouping and how combining grade levels or assessments could mask grade-level performance; staff and data lead said the public dashboard will report high-level metrics while grade-level KPIs will be tracked internally.
Ian, the district's data lead (Ian, speaker 7), explained that variation across assessments and grades is common and that combining different tests can change the appearance of overall proficiency rates. "What I can say is working with assessment data from districts across the country, what we're seeing here is not a a typical. It's it's not uncommon for us to see, variation in proficiency rates and in performance in general across grade levels and across topics," Ian said, stressing that some variation reflects assessment content and local context rather than inaccuracy.
Board members asked whether combining grades (for example, 3rd–7th) or buildings would "skew" the public metrics. Staff recommended showing broad district-level ranges on the public dashboard while maintaining more detailed, grade-level and subject-level reports for internal accountability and for the board's review. The board directed staff to prepare dashboard mock-ups and clarified that the strategic plan should explicitly distinguish public-facing KPIs from internal accountability metrics.
