The district outperformed the state average, with 56% of students meeting or exceeding expectations, compared to the state’s 45%. Additionally, the warning rate for third grade was impressively low, at half the state’s rate. However, concern was raised for fifth-grade English Language Arts, where only 30% of students met or exceeded expectations, a drop from the previous year.

Fourth-grade results were positive, with the district surpassing state averages in both meeting/exceeding percentages and student growth percentile. Yet, the narrative shifted with the fifth-grade English Language Arts results, which showed a significant decline. No students were in the exceeding category, raising red flags about both achievement levels and growth. This decline prompted discussions about potential underlying factors and the need for strategic approaches to address these issues.

Sixth-grade results presented a complex scenario; while mathematics scores were slightly better than the state average, English Language Arts results were concerning. The district acknowledged the need to analyze broader data to understand these performance dips, especially as they had not been seen in previous years.

The high school’s academic performance, particularly in 10th-grade English Language Arts, was a bright spot. Scores exceeded the average scaled score set by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. The percentage of students exceeding expectations increased, and the not meeting rate decreased from 9% to 7%, outperforming the state’s 12% rate. However, the meeting brought attention to specific groups of students who did not meet expectations in mathematics, prompting plans to identify their needs and ensure they are supported to retest.

In science, the district demonstrated substantial growth, with the percentage of students meeting or exceeding expectations rising significantly. The district’s adoption of the McGraw-Hill core program and plans to enhance lab experiences through a virtual model were noted as contributing factors to these improvements.

Despite these achievements, the high school met only 68% of its accountability targets, with a particular gap in support for the lowest-performing students. This shortfall led to discussions about the effectiveness of existing support programs like “charger time” and the need for enhanced engagement strategies.

Concerns were also raised about the district’s graduation cohort numbers, which, though nearly 90%, were perceived as potentially misleading due to inclusion of students who had transferred or dropped out. The dropout rate was low at 1.3%, and efforts to reduce it further through individualized case management were highlighted. The English Language Learner team exceeded all targets.

A significant topic of discussion was advanced coursework, where the district did not meet goals due to a lack of offerings in Project Lead the Way and Advanced Placement courses. This gap prompted questions about course availability and student access to advanced educational opportunities.