Staff outline methods to identify "successful" Montana school districts amid test changes

Legislative staff presented an update on the "successful school districts" study, laying out data sources, metrics, and next steps for the School Funding Interim Commission.

The presenters said round‑one data includes district‑level percentages of students deemed proficient in ELA, math and science across the years 2017–18 through 2024–25; a round‑two submission, expected within days, will add student‑level demographic counts and staffing and expenditure details needed for the "beat‑the‑odds" analysis. Staff emphasized that the state's testing system changed in 2024–25 after a 2023–24 pilot, limiting apples‑to‑apples comparisons across those years and prompting proposals for rank‑based or z‑score growth measures.

Commissioners pressed staff on several methodological choices: whether to compare like grade spans (elementary vs. high school vs. K–12), how to treat the science data (which showed a sharp drop with a test change), and how small districts with tiny cohorts affect averages and standard deviations. Staff said they recommended excluding the science test from some absolute measures because of variability and plan to produce lists stratified by district size so that very small LEs do not dominate the candidate pool.

Staff described an "absolute performance" pathway that selects districts at or above average, at +0.5 standard deviation, or at +1 SD, using two‑ and three‑year windows; they also outlined growth metrics (any growth, fixed percentage‑point increases, or rank change over time) and the planned "beat‑the‑odds" regression that will compare performance to expected results given student demographics. "We're leaning toward rank‑position change and z‑scores for growth," one presenter said, explaining the team wants metrics that are transparent and replicable in spreadsheet tools.

The presenters noted the practical target: a pool of successful districts roughly equal to at least 10% of districts, achieved by combining absolute, growth and beat‑the‑odds methods and by re‑running thresholds if necessary. They also previewed a planned district survey to collect qualitative information from candidate districts on practices and expenditures.

Commissioners directed staff to: rerun selection metrics excluding the smallest districts; test z‑score and rank approaches for growth; return stratified lists (by size and grade span); and bring draft survey questions. Staff said they will meet internally immediately, refine the methodology, and report back at the commission's June meeting.