Oregon City Schools earns 4‑star district rating; career‑tech program retains top score
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
At the Oct. 6 Oregon Board of Education meeting, district staff reported a 4‑star state report card for the district and a fifth consecutive 5‑star rating for the Clay High School career‑technical program. Staff identified narrowing the performance index gap as the primary next step to reach 4.5 stars.
Jennifer (staff member) reported at the Oct. 6 Oregon Board of Education meeting that Oregon City Schools earned a 4‑star rating on the Ohio Department of Education district report card and that the Clay High School career‑technical program again received 5 out of 5 stars.
"We are at 4 stars as a district," Jennifer said, presenting the state report card data and the district's component scores. She told the board that five of six district report‑card components are at 4 stars and that the district's gap‑closing measure rose from 3 stars last year to 5 stars this year.
The report showed variation among individual buildings: Clay High School remained at 4 stars, one school rose to 5 stars, another was at 4.5, and one building was at 3.5 and reported it was only "75 thousandths" away from 4 stars, Jennifer said.
Jennifer explained how the state calculates the overall rating and said the district missed 4.5 stars by 0.125 points in the aggregate. She recommended focusing on the performance index — the achievement component that counts for 25% of the overall score — and on moving students from "proficient" to "accomplished" and "advanced" levels to gain the additional points needed.
"What we're looking to do this year is decrease the number of proficient students, because we want to move them to accomplished and advanced," she said, adding that building principals have started conversations about instructional depth and rigor.
Board members and staff praised the result as a multi‑year, team effort. One board member noted the district's progress over several years and urged continued work to push toward 4.5 stars.
The presentation included a two‑page handout and a detailed email the presenter said she had sent previously; Jennifer invited board members to ask follow‑up questions and to use the handout to review component definitions and calculations.
Next steps discussed at the meeting include targeted instructional strategies to raise student performance levels, continued principal‑level conversations led by Dr. Prince, and using the new report‑card component (college/career/workforce/military readiness) as an area for monitoring and improvement.