Low Math Scores, Costly Contracts: What Mifflin’s September 14 Board Packet Deserves to Explain

A plain-language critical analysis of Governor Mifflin’s September 14, 2026 meeting packet: student results, improvement plans, contract costs, and questions taxpayers should ask.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS — SEPTEMBER 14, 2026 BOARD PACKET By The Mifflin Report | Governor Mifflin School District The school board’s September 14 meeting packet raises a simple question: Can the district explain how its plans and spending will produce better results for students? The most concerning number is easy to understand. In the high school Algebra 1 results presented to the board, only 22.8% reached proficient or advanced . The packet also contains real signs of progress. A fair review should acknowledge those gains without allowing them to hide the work still needed. This is a review of the agenda packet for the meeting scheduled for Monday, September 14, 2026, at 7 p.m. It is not a report of votes already taken. Proposed contracts, personnel actions, and policy changes should not be treated as completed decisions. PDF p. 1 The short version Student results need a clearer explanation. Low proficiency and positive growth can both be true. The improvement plan needs corrections. Its student-group labels and some targets do not line up. Contract rates are only part of the cost. Hiring fees, liability clauses, and operating obligations also deserve scrutiny. 1. Algebra results: fewer than one in four reached proficiency Chart 1. Assessment categories reported in the high school presentation ( PDF pp. 3–4 ). These are not financial figures or a three-year trend. In Algebra 1, 77.2% of the reported results were below the proficient level : 46.8% were Basic and 30.4% Below Basic. In English language arts, 47.8% reached proficient or advanced. Those are substantial challenges, even before making any comparison with another district. The presentation also puts the average ELA score at 1489 , compared with a proficient cut score of 1500 . That is an 11-point gap. An average below the cutoff does not mean every student failed, and it does not by itself tell us how many students passed. PDF p. 5 What the board should ask: Which testing year and student group do these results cover? How many students were included? How do the results compare with the same measure in earlier years and statewide? What measurable improvement should families expect next? The supplied analysis compared the Algebra result with an approximately 44.3% statewide figure from a news article. That comparison is not used here because the matching testing year and population have not been established. 2. There is progress—and it should be reported accurately The presentation’s “Success” slides are not empty. They contain figures that were missed by a text-only review. The high school growth slide, labeled school year 2024–25, shows an ELA academic-growth score of 100.0 and a math score of 75.0 . It identifies the all-student group as exceeding the ELA growth standard and meeting the math growth standard. These are growth measures, not percentages of students who passed . PDF p. 6 The next slide reports a 99.4% career-standards benchmark , compared with a 91.5% statewide average and a 98.0% performance standard. That is a documented positive result, but it is a different measure from Algebra proficiency. PDF p. 7 The critical point: Students can make expected progress while many still perform below proficiency. The board should explain both, rather than treating either one as the whole story. Chart 2. Figures as listed in the middle school plan ( PDF p. 42 ). These compare grade-level groups across school years—not necessarily the same students. The testing schedules also differ. The middle school’s newer iReady figures show improvement in three of the four grade/subject groups above. Seventh-grade math slips from 33% to 32% on or above grade level. Even after improvement, 68% of seventh graders and 70% of eighth graders are below grade level in math , according to the plan’s 2025–26 figures. The newer seventh-grade ELA figure is 57% below grade level —not the older 69% used elsewhere in the supplied critique. Comparisons also need care: these are different annual grade groups, and the packet lists different diagnostic-testing months. 3. An improvement plan needs targets people can follow The middle school’s Targeted Support and Improvement plan—an improvement plan for identified student needs—contains useful instructional steps. It calls for closer reading, students explaining their math reasoning, vocabulary instruction, and regular checks of progress. These are more specific than simply promising to “do better.” But several parts need clarification before families can use it to track accountability: Who is the plan targeting? The equity section labels the listed groups as “not a focus,” while the measurable goals name English Learner and Hispanic students. Those statements need to be reconciled. PDF p. 45 ; PDF pp. 52–53 What is the vocabulary goal? The annual goal says 85% by May 2027, but the fourth-quarter target says 90%. The board should establish which target governs. PDF p. 53 What is the starting point? The goal statements need clear starting results for the particular tasks being measured. An 80% classroom-task target is not automatically an 80% Keystone pass-rate target. PDF p. 52 Who carries the plan forward? A middle school administrator appears on the steering committee and is also listed for resignation effective October 26. The district should explain the handover, not assume continuity. PDF p. 19 ; PDF p. 35 A middle school form also discusses a high-school graduation indicator with no available data. That may reflect a template field that does not apply to this school, rather than a contradiction about actual graduation results. The useful question is whether the final document makes those distinctions clear. PDF p. 40 4. Substitute staffing: the rate is not the whole bill Chart 3. Kelly pricing exhibit ( PDF p. 15 ). The gap is a vendor markup, not a verified profit margin. The packet does not give the number of days purchased. The three daily rates above carry a 33% markup . The hourly nurse rate is separate: $27 in worker pay and $40.50 billed to the district, a 50% markup . Do not compare an hourly rate directly with a daily rate. Markups alone do not establish excessive profit. They can cover recruitment, payroll, employment costs, and other services. The missing question is what the district receives and whether it has compared alternatives. The exhibit also lists a $10,000 fee for changing absence-management providers and a graduated hiring-fee schedule that begins at $9,000. Some short-notice cancellations can trigger up to four hours of billed time. These are potential contract charges—not proof the district has paid them. PDF p. 15 What the board should ask: What is the expected annual total? How often have these extra fees applied? What other staffing options were compared? 5. Security and internships: explain who carries the risk The event-security proposal lists an estimated fall cost of $4,602 , with unarmed agents at $29.50 an hour and armed agents at $49 an hour. It includes minimum hours and holiday pricing. PDF p. 83 The contract also limits the vendor’s liability, sets a cap tied to fees paid, and includes a district obligation to defend and protect the vendor in specified circumstances. Those provisions deserve a plain-language explanation from the district’s solicitor. They are not evidence that the vendor has acted negligently. PDF pp. 84–86 The statement of work says agents do not need Act 67 school training because their student contact is described as incidental. The board should ask its solicitor to confirm whether that interpretation fits the work actually assigned. The packet alone does not settle the legal question. PDF p. 89 The Reading Hospital internship agreement offers students $10 an hour , but also assigns emergency healthcare costs to students and requires insurance certification. That is a worthwhile opportunity with responsibilities families need to understand before signing up. PDF pp. 67–68 6. Gym repairs: ask about the insurance balance Chart 4. Claim summary and insurer worksheet ( PDF pp. 92, 96 ). Recovery conditions need confirmation; this is not proof of a permanent taxpayer loss. The gym-floor agenda item lists a $9,715 district balance after the insurer’s payment. But the insurer’s worksheet also shows a total of $92,360 if depreciation is recovered . PDF p. 96 The right question is not “Why did the district throw away $9,715?” The packet does not prove that. The question is: What are the recovery conditions, will the district meet them, and what is the expected final local cost? The contractor offers a $92,360 repair and a $364,200 replacement. The board should explain why the proposed repair is the better long-term choice, including moisture concerns and warranty protection. PDF pp. 101–103 The packet also includes construction changes for omitted lintels, acoustical panels, a mural wall, window pockets, plumbing, and floor preparation. The $44,146.57 floor-preparation item includes $40,000 from an existing allowance; it should not be described as entirely new spending. A running list of changes, allowances used, and responsibility for drawing errors would be more useful than reviewing each item in isolation. PDF pp. 104–115 7. Staffing and policy: what will implementation require? The personnel section lists 10 regular resignations, one separate co-curricular resignation, and one retirement . That warrants questions about vacancies and continuity. It does not, without workforce size and historical comparisons, establish a turnover rate or prove a retention crisis. PDF p. 17 ; PDF p. 19 The proposed virtual-attendance policy includes escalation to an in-person wellness check within 24 hours in specified circumstances—even on a weekend or holiday. Who will perform those checks, and how will they be staffed and funded? PDF pp. 148–150 The bullying-policy revisions address AI-generated or modified media. That is a useful update. Families and staff also need to know how reports will be investigated and how the policy will work in practice. PDF p. 172 For individual student services, the board can explain budgeting and oversight without publicly disclosing a student’s private educational or medical circumstances. The bottom line: ask for answers, not just approval This packet documents low proficiency, some meaningful progress, and plans that need clearer targets. It also contains contract obligations that are easy to overlook if discussion stops at the headline price. Our assessment: The board should insist on comparable academic results, corrected plan targets, clear contract-risk explanations, and realistic net costs. That is a stronger basis for accountability than assuming every omission proves misconduct—or assuming a detailed packet answers every important question. Six questions residents can take to the meeting What testing year and student group do the Keystone results represent, and what is the matching comparison? Which improvement targets apply, what are the starting results, and when will progress be reported? How will the district maintain leadership and staffing continuity during the improvement plan? What is the expected total cost of substitute staffing, including potential fees? Has the solicitor reviewed the security liability and training provisions? Can the $9,715 in gym-floor depreciation be recovered, and what is the final expected local cost? Source and review notes Public Meeting Agenda: September 14, 2026 at 7:00 PM - Work/General Purposes Meeting - Meetings Governor Mifflin School District: September 14, 2026 Work/General Purposes Meeting packet (204-page PDF) , supplied for this review. Page references use the PDF’s physical page count, which differs from numbering inside individual attachments. The key academic slides, including the image-based “Success” slides, were visually reviewed. Contract and policy figures were checked against the packet’s extracted text. This is a focused review of the cited material, not a complete financial audit or legal opinion. No meeting outcomes, later amendments, or outside statewide comparison have been independently established here. Charts were created by The Mifflin Report from the cited packet figures. Critical judgments and questions are this publication’s analysis, not conclusions stated by the district.