North Pike School District principals told the Board of Trustees on Tuesday that the district's accountability rating slipped from an A to a B this year and presented targeted plans to recover points, improve proficiency and sustain growth.

Superintendent Dr. Smith introduced the accountability discussion and placed it in statewide context, saying the cut scores and accountability model have shifted since 2016 and that statewide numbers of districts with A and B ratings have fluctuated since COVID. He said boards across the region have discussed accountability and that the district should focus on sustaining gains without overreacting to a single-year dip.

Principals from the district's elementary, upper elementary, junior high and high school described school-level factors that contributed to the drop and the work underway to address them. Common themes included rising numbers of students with significant special education needs, elevated counts of students on affidavits, incoming students whose prior instruction was inconsistent, and staffing adjustments that affected tested courses.

At the lower elementary, the principal reported roughly 783 students (enrollment fluctuates daily), 111 students on affidavit (of whom about 25 are special education and 18 are tier 2 or 3 interventions), and districtwide increases in students requiring intensive supports. The principal said those counts create pressure on proficiency rates because students with severe learning disabilities (SLD) take the same state assessments but are statistically less likely to score at the highest proficiency bands used for accountability calculations.

"If you have a 100 kids in fourth grade and half of them are SLD, the highest your proficiency rate could be is 50% even if all other students score top marks," a principal explained, describing how inclusion of SLD students in proficiency calculations lowers overall proficiency percentages even when growth is present.

Principals said the district has deployed several strategies: a new ELA curriculum at upper elementary, enhanced use of instructional support teachers inside general classrooms, small-group interventions, consultant partnerships (notably Kids First and Excellence Group), targeted "boot camps" and after-school interventions, and expanded use of diagnostics and benchmark data (ELS). Principals reported growth in several measures over recent years but acknowledged two key weaknesses this year: low math growth and lower school-wide ELA proficiency in certain schools.

At the junior high, leaders cited teacher turnover and a late-season staffing shuffle that affected eighth-grade science instruction and contributed to lower science points. They said the school is emphasizing instructional coaching, small-group remediation, calculator fluency in eighth-grade mathematics, manipulatives for seventh-grade math, and daily PLCs (professional learning communities) to monitor progress.

High school leaders reviewed long-term trends and noted that while the school achieved an A in previous years, it currently sits about 14 points below the A threshold under the current model. The high school focused on acceleration and college- and career-readiness components that contribute to district-level accountability: dual-credit enrollment, AP course participation, WorkKeys and national certifications at the CTC (Career and Technical Center), and ACT preparation. The high school and CTC staff reported students earning national certifications and WorkKeys scores that boost acceleration and CCR (college and career readiness) points.

District and school leaders described operational steps to improve performance: protected instructional time, expanded consultant coaching in classrooms rather than pull-out models, use of intensive small-group classes for lowest-performing students, boot camps every nine weeks for science, and the district's new status as a non-reported ACT test center to allow targeted retesting for students who failed state assessments.

Principals repeatedly credited teacher effort and community support. They asked the board not to "overreact" with sweeping staffing changes and instead to continue targeted supports already shown to yield gains. Several principals highlighted recent fundraising, facility improvements and higher teacher morale as positive conditions supporting recovery efforts.

Board members asked about specific metrics and supports: suspension rates (district about 17.4%), the number of new-to-district students (about 60 in K4), the number of self-contained and resource students, and whether the district can expand dual-credit access given associated costs for families. High school leaders noted the district subsidizes portions of dual-credit fees and that families typically pay a per-course fee (noted in discussion as roughly $50
00 depending on the semester); trustees discussed whether additional district subsidy could increase participation and accountability points.

Leaders said they will continue monitoring benchmarks, use consultant coaching and instructional support teachers more intensively in classrooms, expand ACT and WorkKeys preparation, and pursue targeted interventions for students with intensive needs. The principals asked for board support for continuity and measured responses rather than immediate, broad personnel changes.

The board received the presentations and had no formal vote on accountability items during the public session.