Strategic Use of Data and Opportunities for Growth in Recent WCCUSD School Board Presentations
In this time of significant budget cuts in WCCUSD, and in the context of stagnant student outcomes in the district for years, it is more vital than ever that district decision-making is done through the thoughtful use of data to understand what programs are effective for improving student outcomes and hence what should be prioritized for continuation or change.
It is in this context that we bring two new analyses of the role of data in district presentations at recent school board meetings, using our Strategic Use of Data Rubric. Both presentations had some real strengths in the depth of data presented and also have some areas that could be improved for future plans and presentations.
LCAP Mid-Year Updates
At the 2/12/25 WCCUSD board meeting the district presented their mid-year updates on the 2024-25 Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP). (report and presentation slides). Local Education Agencies (LEAs) are now required to annually present a mid-year update on the progress of the LCAP, in order to provide the opportunity to reflect on and make adjustments to the plan’s implementation thus far and inform the creation of the next year’s LCAP. (Learn more about the LCAP process in GO’s LCAP Guide.)
Data in Action
Evaluating this presentation with our Strategic Use of Data Rubric, 1 category received a “basic” rating, 6 categories received an “emerging” rating, 6 categories received a “strong” rating, and 1 category received an “exemplary” rating for an overall score of 21 points, WCCUSD’s first “strong” overall rating.
Overall, the LCAP presentation and mid-year update template was a significant improvement compared to what we have seen from WCCUSD LCAP updates in past years. Previous years’ updates and LCAP presentations (whether at mid-year or end of year) often focused just on explaining what the LCAP is, what the required parts of the template are, and a listing of the LCAP goals, but little sense of whether goals have been met and what programs supported through the LCAP have been effective. In contrast, this presentation provides detailed data both on measurable outcomes and action implementation, as well as helpful, clear reflections on what successes are being seen and what areas are in need of improvement. This made the presentation more transparent and actionable. There are, however, some areas that we think could be improved for future LCAP presentations and updates.
Although this is a “mid-year update” most of the data listed in the “mid-year outcome data” for the Annual Measurable Objectives is actually from the previous school year (2023-24). This is not uncommon because the California School Dashboard, the major data source for many LCAP metrics, is released each fall with the previous year’s data. For some data points, there may not be a direct mid-year data point that could be added (e.g., Graduation Rate, SBAC scores).
However, this mid-year update would be much more effective if for all data points possible there was also data provided with current year-to-date data. Although this data is not yet on the California School Dashboard, it is data that the district should have internally and should be monitoring throughout the year. Examples of this would be: current-year suspension data, attendance & chronic absenteeism data, as well as projections of end of year academic outcomes based on current-year trends. A positive example where this did happen in the presentation is for the Reclassification rate data, in which both the updated 2023-24 rate was posted (10.8%) and the mid-year outcome data of reclassifications thus far this year (7%).
In the “actions” sections of the template, more current-year data is provided, including reflections on implementation and some current-year outcome data, so this was very helpful. Increasing the consistency of including this data throughout, and consistently labeling when the data is from, would strengthen future updates.
There is a clear connection between many of the goals, metrics, and actions. This is an area that was greatly improved between the first and second LCAP versions last summer. However, in Goal 5, which is a required goal to address disproportionate outcomes for foster youth, homeless youth, English learners, socioeconomically disadvantaged, African American, and Latino youth, there is a disconnect between the overall goal and metrics and some of the actions. While the goal is intended to address disparities in results for all of these student groups, and the metrics measuring success to break down the results in terms of these groups, the actions are limited to addressing just a few student groups: English learner support (action 5.1), African American student support (action 5.2), and Long-Term English Learner support (action 5.3). The mid-year update for the programs related to these is strong and detailed. However, there is no reporting on what is being done to support the other student groups identified in this goal or to improve their outcomes. This is due to the LCAP plan itself not having any broader actions, or actions targeted at these other student groups, in this goal, despite naming them in the objectives and metrics. This is an area that could be improved in the 2025-26 LCAP which is currently being developed.
One small but potentially impactful change that could be made in future LCAP updates (both mid-year and the annual LCAP submissions) is in the “Desired outcome for 2026-27” (which lays out what the end goal is for the 3-year plan) to explicitly list what the target number of success would be. This is true for some metrics (e.g., increase to a score of 4 out of 5 on parent survey; retain 80% of teachers year-to-year). But for most metrics, the desired outcome is listed only in terms of the percent of improvement that is desired (e.g., decrease chronic absenteeism and suspensions by 15%, increase graduation rate by 6%, etc.) Adding to this the actual desired rate for chronic absenteeism, suspensions, graduation, etc. would make it easier for casual readers to see how close or far we are from achieving that goal, and also would eliminate any ambiguity around whether these numbers are referencing changes in percentage points or changes in actual percentages.
Additionally, there was no mid-year data or implementation updates provided for LCAP Goals 6 and 7 (which focus on supporting Lincoln Elementary and Greenwood Academy as “LCFF Equity Multiplier” schools). The district should come back and present updated data related to these goals and sites at a future meeting, so that there is appropriate transparency and oversight regarding these important programs.
Overall, the district is to be commended for the improved depth and transparency of data and reflections in this LCAP update compared to years past. We hope that identifying the above areas for growth will be helpful in the work happening this spring to create the 25-26 LCAP. Finally, we know that there was confusion around opportunities for public comment for this LCAP report at the 2/12 board meeting and we encourage the board to provide time at the next meeting for the community to provide public comment on the LCAP progress and update.
CCEIS Presentation and Plan to Reduce Disproportionalities
The district presented their CCEIS plan at the February 5 board meeting (CCEIS plan and presentation slides). The summary provided in the board agenda listing provided helpful context for the plan and its requirements. A school district is required to create a plan like this when they are found to have a “significant disproportionality” in different student groups’ identification for special education services or discipline actions, for three or more consecutive years. The overall process includes: (1) analyzing data, (2) determining root causes, (3) developing and approving a CCEIS plan, and (4) implementing and monitoring the plan. This presentation and board vote to approve it represented the culmination of phase 3.
Specifically, the plan was required to address an overrepresentation of white special education students being placed at “separate schools” (NPS/non-public schools), which is for students needing significant or specific support beyond what the district can provide at its schools.
Data in Action
Evaluating this presentation with our Strategic Use of Data Rubric, 2 categories received a “basic” rating, 8 categories received an “emerging” rating, and 4 categories received a “strong” rating, for an overall score of 16 points, which is in the “emerging” range.
The plan and its use of data has a number of strengths. The plan sets out clear, specific “expected measurable outcomes” (goals) for the plan: to have a 5% decline in the number of white students placed in “separate schools” and a 5% reduction in African American students’ suspension rates. There were clear criteria for how the participating schools (Fairmont, Harding, Kensington, Madera, Mira Vista, and Korematsu) were chosen (because they have 20% or more white students, and “yellow” results on the dashboard for absenteeism OR orange results on the dashboard for suspensions OR a high number of referrals for 504 plans or Special education). There were also clear criteria for selecting the focal students from these schools to receive support (3 or more absences, below-grade level results on ELA and Math SBAC, and have at least one “incident” on file).
However, the underlying theory of action connecting these different elements was not clear. What is the rate of placement at the identified sites? Are they the schools driving this disproportionality? Are the criteria for selection, such as chronic absenteeism, directly related to this disproportionality? How do the two issues the plan is attempting to address– overrepresentation of white students at separate schools and reducing African American suspension rates– connect? They would seem to have differing underlying causes and hence may need different plans to address.
There is a very robust sequence of actions in the plan, and most of the actions do have solid data points identified to monitor them. What is the accountability plan for reporting out this monitoring data? Are there opportunities or plans to make adjustments if the data along the way shows that the actions are not effective or if they are not having the intended effect for reducing the disproportionalities identified?
Another issue we wondered about is the nature of the overidentification of white students for separate school placements. There is the possibility that this is related less to over-identification, and more to other student groups being under-identified for these intensive and expensive placements, which sometimes require significant parental advocacy to receive access to. Although this may be outside the scope of the CCEIS process the way it is designed, it would be worthwhile to explore, to achieve the underlying equity aims of CCEIS.
Finally, the financial impact of this disproportionality finding, and the ones the district has had to address in the past, is significant– 15% of the federal IDEA funding for Special Education must be diverted to this, which amounts to over 1 million dollars. How will the district be monitoring for potential disproportionalities in the future in order to proactively avoid these kinds of findings going forward?