Where RCS stands today
Loading commentary…
School Snapshot
Letter grade components and current chronic-absenteeism rate for each of seven schools.
District trends, 2018-2026
Indicator-level direction over the post-COVID window. 2020 is omitted for indicators affected by USDOE COVID-19 waivers.
Compare schools across indicators
Pick an indicator and year. The heatmap below shows chronic absenteeism by school over the full multi-year window.
Single-school view: all indicators over time
Pick a school to see its trajectory across every available indicator. Each mini-chart spans the full window of available data for that metric.
Growth scores by school and year
TVAAS rates schools on a 1-5 growth scale (1 = least, 5 = most). RCS has held district-level 5 every year since 2021. 2017 and 2020 are state-data gaps.
District TVAAS Trend
EOC results by subject
Official 2026 EOC results (% Met or Exceeded, real cut scores) vs the 2025 baseline. Biology results are released in August after standard setting and show as pending. The District view includes ROA Riverbend students coded to 999-0033 (34 students in 2026); switch the scope to see RHS only.
Historical district performance
District % Met+Exc (or Proficient+Advanced before 2016) by subject group. The vertical line marks the 2016 TNReady transition. Pre- and post-reset values are not directly comparable; the gap is methodology, not student decline.
Proficiency Trends by Subject + Subgroup
% Met+Exc (TCAP "On Track or Mastered") for the chosen subject, grade band, and subgroup. Mirror of the RCS Looker Studio comparison pattern, with the full TDOE history 2018-2026 (2026 added from the official assessment file). The vertical dashed line at 2016 marks the TNReady standard reset; pre/post comparison is not apples-to-apples for the older window.
Subgroup performance trends
Multi-year subgroup gaps. Where lines stay far apart over years, the gap is structural and unlikely to close without targeted intervention.
Letter grades by school and year
Tennessee's A-F school report card. Most RCS schools rated A or B since the program began in 2023.
Federal Accountability — Official + Projected
Official Reward, TSI, and CSI designations from TDOE's School Accountability Status List (released each November). Plus a forward-looking projection for the 2025-26 cycle based on 2026 observable deltas. Spring 2026 TVAAS lands in late fall; revisit then.
Official designations by year
From TDOE School Accountability Status List. Reward = overall accountability score of 3.1 or higher (not limited to a top-10% cut); TSI = subgroup performance trigger; CSI = bottom 5% or HS grad rate < 67%.
School-by-school projection
2025 actual letter grade vs 2026 projected. Confidence reflects how much of the projection rests on actuals (high) vs assumption (low).
Federal accountability outlook
Only Reward is projected — it has an absolute rule (overall score ≥ 3.1). TSI and CSI are relative statewide cuts TDOE determines each fall and are not projected; actual 2025 designations carry until TDOE determines exit.
Methodology and caveats
Supporting indicators
Other indicators that feed federal accountability calculations.
District Context
Background data that shapes interpretation of accountability indicators. Demographic mix, per-pupil spending, teacher retention, and TISA graduate readiness pathways.
Demographics
Enrollment composition by year. Subgroup percentages drive AMO denominators and TSI risk.
AMO targets vs current status
For the scope and subgroup you pick, each row is one indicator: the 2025 baseline, the 2026 AMO target, the Double AMO (stretch) target, and the actual 2026 result where it's in yet, with a status badge. AMO = baseline + (100 − baseline) / 16; chronic absenteeism is lower-is-better.
Status compares the 2026 actual to the targets. "Met double" = hit the stretch target, "Met AMO" = hit the standard target, "Below target" = short of it, "Pending" = 2026 result not released yet. Actuals are currently wired for Chronic Absenteeism and College & Career Readiness; others show targets only until those files load.
Which schools look alike — and which don't?
We took 25 things we measure about each school (test scores, growth, discipline, demographics, finances, etc.) and asked a computer: "Group the schools that look most alike. Tell us which ones stand out." Here's what it said.
The bottom line
Schools that look alike
Each school listed below was grouped with the others in its column because their overall profile (across all 25 indicators) is similar. Schools alone in a column have a profile that sets them apart from the rest.
School-years that stood out
These specific school-years didn't fit the typical pattern. Sometimes that means something genuinely changed (new program, demographic shift); sometimes it just means more data was reported that year. Worth a closer look at each one.
The big picture
The map below places every school-year on two axes. The horizontal axis is roughly "how strong the academic results look." The vertical axis is roughly "how the demographic mix compares to the district." Schools that sit close together have similar profiles. Schools with a red ring are the outliers from above.
How each school moved over time
Same map, but now connected year-by-year. A short, tight path means the school's profile stayed stable. A long path means the profile shifted.
For the data-curious: the technical details
This analysis uses three techniques from unsupervised machine learning:
- Principal Component Analysis (PCA): compresses the 25 indicators down to 2 axes that capture the most variation. PC1 here is dominated by growth score, TVAAS, graduation rate, and letter grade. PC2 is dominated by demographic percentages (% white, % BHN, % EL, % ED).
- K-means clustering with silhouette-picked K = 2. Schools were split into 2 groups based on profile similarity.
- Isolation Forest anomaly detection, contamination = 0.15, flagged the 4 most-unusual school-years.
Caveat: all 4 anomalies are from 2025 because that's the year with the most indicators reported. Older years had fewer indicators populated and were dropped at the ≥10-indicators threshold. The anomaly result is partly a coverage artifact.
Generated via the Colab notebook at notebooks/RCS_unsupervised_learning.ipynb. Source data: data/RCS_clusters.csv.
Where do we fit in Tennessee?
Same analysis as the Patterns tab, but now run against every TN district. The question: are we an outlier, or do we look like a normal TN district?
The short answer
Do we punch above our weight?
Where Riverbend lands on each indicator
Each row shows Riverbend's value, the TN median, and where we rank as a percentile of all 144 districts. Green ≥ 75th percentile, yellow 25-75th, red < 25th. For chronic absenteeism, lower is better — so the percentile is flipped.
The TN map — Riverbend highlighted
Each dot is a TN district. Position reflects the district's overall profile across 22 indicators. Districts that sit near each other have similar profiles. Riverbend is the red star. Hover any dot for details.
The kinds of districts Tennessee has
When you sort TN districts into groups based on their full profile, this is what falls out:
Riverbend's 10 closest TN twins
Districts with the most similar overall profile to Riverbend across all 22 indicators. Use this as your apples-to-apples benchmarking list.
Who are the actual TN outliers?
The 15 districts whose profile doesn't fit the typical TN pattern. Mostly specialty schools, urban mega-districts, or extreme-wealth / extreme-poverty cases.