Speaker 1, an unidentified speaker in the meeting, said the district is pleased many schools scored four or five stars on the first indicator but cautioned that overall ratings are constrained by the lowest indicator. “The dynamics of the star rankings ... cannot be higher than your lowest star,” Speaker 1 said, explaining why some schools’ overall ratings may not match other indicators of performance.

Speaker 1 said the district will examine causes at the high‑school level, including graduation rates, and noted that some classes experience temporary "blips" when a cohort fails to show expected growth. “Sometimes there are blips in the radar or a class just struggles a little bit more than others because we're not getting growth over time,” Speaker 1 said, urging comparisons of separate cohorts rather than treating all cohorts as identical.

Speaker 2 said they appreciated the report but objected to the rating methodology, calling it a long‑standing “pet peeve.” “I don't agree with it,” Speaker 2 said, arguing the aggregation rule does not reflect how they view school quality.

On operations, Speaker 1 said the technology department faces several retirements and proposed replacing staff so responsibilities align with individual strengths to maintain continuity. Speaker 1 also raised ongoing concerns about the district website and the ability to search using EduMark, describing the current site as a later iteration and signaling further work will go into the next release.

For near‑term next steps, Speaker 1 announced a special budget workshop set for Monday, Jan. 5 at 5:30 p.m. in the Media Center, and said staff will present budget drivers and major challenges, solicit feedback, and return for further discussion later in January.