Montgomery County school academic performance rankings will be reviewed during a Tuesday school board meeting, which also will feature a report on student disciplinary trends and an update on potential changes to driver education.
A report showing how county schools rank in Virginia’s new School Performance and Support Framework was to be presented at the board’s Jan. 6 meeting, but it was postponed because that meeting’s agenda became too lengthy, according to the school division. The Jan. 6 open meeting exceeded three hours.
The school board will first convene Tuesday in closed session at 5:30 p.m. to discuss personnel and a student matter. That will take place in conference rooms A and B at the school board office, 750 Imperial St. SE, Christiansburg. The regular meeting will begin at 7 p.m. in the county government center, 755 Roanoke St., Christiansburg.
Some very good news, some very real challenges
Six of Montgomery County’s 20 public schools meet the highest standards of Virginia’s new School Performance and Support Framework, while five schools rank below state expectations and need more support, according to the report first prepared for the Jan. 6 meeting.
According to the presentation, all county schools are fully accredited, meaning they meet all state requirements.
The framework also measures accountability in terms of learning, progress and outcomes. It places schools in one of four rankings:
— Distinguished, meaning the school exceeds state expectations. These include Gilbert Linkous Elementary School, Harding Avenue Elementary, Kipps Elementary, Margaret Beeks Elementary, Auburn High School and Blacksburg High.
— On track, meaning the school meets expectations. These include Auburn Elementary, Belview Elementary, Christiansburg Elementary, Christiansburg Primary School, Auburn Middle School, Blacksburg Middle, Christiansburg High and Eastern Montgomery High.
— Off track, meaning the school ranks below expectations and needs more state support. These include Falling Branch Elementary, Prices Fork Elementary and Christiansburg Middle.
— Needs intensive support, meaning the school ranks significantly below expectations. These include Eastern Montgomery Elementary and Shawsville Middle.
Also, five schools received federal identification for improvement, all in relation to students with disabilities.
Under federal identification, Eastern Montgomery Elementary, Falling Branch Elementary, Prices Fork Elementary and Shawsville Middle were designated for “targeted support and improvement,” meaning one or more student groups don’t meet achievement expectations.
Christiansburg Middle was designated for “additional targeted support and improvement.” According to the presentation, this designation applies when a school that has been identified every three years under “targeted support and improvement” continues to have one or more student groups not meeting a threshold in the overall framework and academic indicators for that student group.
The report notes that the state education department will offer training sessions this month to support school divisions with federally identified schools.
The report does not include Montgomery Central in Christiansburg, which serves a small number of at-risk students in grades 8-12 from across the county.
Disparities in school discipline to be noted
Also on the agenda is a presentation from the Office of Equity and Diversity on monitoring for disparities in student discipline during the first semester of the current school year.
According to the report, the top three student behaviors that led to an in-school suspension, ranked in order, were a student being in an unauthorized area of the school campus, a student interfering with classroom learning and a student refusing to comply with a staff request.
The top three behaviors that led to an out-of-school suspension, ranked in order, were a student refusing to comply with a staff request, a student defying a staff question or request and a student using profane or vulgar language and/or gestures.
The school division measures student discipline outcomes among state-identified student groups using a risk index and a risk ratio, the report explains. Those groups are Black or African American; Black or African American and white; Hispanic; white; and Asian.
The risk index measures the likelihood that students from a specific demographic group experience a disciplinary action. For example, the report notes, if 229 of 533 white students received in-school suspension, that would mean 41.4% of white students were suspended at least once.
During the first semester, the in-school suspension index for Black or African American students was 5.19%, or 22 students, the report states. The index for white students was 3.64%, or 259 students. For Hispanic students, the index was 4.31%, or 41 students.
The risk ratio indicates how the risk for one group, as measured by the risk index, compares to the risk for another group. For example, if the in-school suspension risk for Hispanic students is 32.3% and the risk for white students is 12.9%, then the risk ratio for Hispanic students would be 2.5, meaning Hispanic students would be 2.5 times more likely to be referred to suspension.
However, the report notes, risk ratios do not show how frequent discipline actually is, and risk ratios can be unstable when there are small sample sizes.
During the first semester, the in-school suspension risk ratio for Black or African American students was 1.43 compared to white students, meaning the first group was 1.43 times more likely to be referred to suspension than the second group. The ratio for Hispanic students was 1.18 compared to white students.
The out-of-school suspension index for Black or African American students was 5.43%, or 22 students. The index for white students was 2.54%, or 182 students. For Hispanic students, the index was 1.94%, or 18 students.
The out-of-school suspension risk ratio for Black or African American students was 2.14 compared to white students, meaning the first group was more than twice as likely to be referred to suspension than the second group. The ratio for Hispanic students was 1.31 compared to white students.
School system officials were contacted by Cardinal News to request additional information about the report ahead of the board meeting. In an email, Coordinator of Communications & Public Relations Andrew Webb wrote: “Tuesday night’s presentation will provide context, explanation, and additional detail on the information in the slides posted in BoardDocs. We encourage you to attend the meeting or watch the livestream to fully understand the information. At this time, we are not providing additional information or commentary, as we believe it is important for the School Board to receive the presentation first.”
Getting behind the wheel of a new program
The superintendent’s report will include new information on the possibility of establishing an in-house behind-the-wheel driver education program. An initial presentation on the concept was made during the board’s October 2025 meeting.
Currently, 715 students take the classroom portion. The county is among 28 percent of Virginia school divisions that don’t provide behind-the-wheel instruction, which is provided by private companies.
According to the updated report, ninth-grade students and parents were surveyed to gauge interest in bringing behind-the-wheel instruction in house, with 145 students and 311 parents responding. Of those: 29 students and 125 parents supported fee-based instruction before or after school and on weekends; 28 students and 114 parents supported fee-based instruction during the school day; 18 students and 28 parents supported free instruction before or after school and on weekends; 66 students and 40 parents supported free instruction during the school day.
County schools have nine fully certified driving instructors, the board learned in October.
The division would need to buy or lease a minimum of three cars for an estimated $75,000, but four cars would be best. The personnel costs would vary depending on whether training is offered during the school day or before and after school and on Saturdays.
Another option would continue sending students to private driving schools, but the division would provide scholarships to students who struggle to afford the training.
You can find meeting documents at https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/mcps/Board.nsf/Public.