This study explores the relationship between mean and group ratings in the context of school-based self-assessment of culturally responsive practices. Specifically, it examines whether the mean of individual ratings can serve as a valid proxy for a group consensus rating, and how measures of consensus—particularly Tastle’s Consensus Index (CNS)—can inform interpretation when group ratings are not available (Tastle, & Tastle, 2006). The analysis considers potential systematic differences between individual and group ratings, highlighting the influence of group dynamics such as conformity and the marginalization of dissenting voices. Findings suggest that while group ratings offer a shared understanding critical for organizational buy-in, the mean of individual ratings may better reflect diverse perspectives, particularly when consensus is low. CNS scores were moderately correlated with the discrepancy between mean and group ratings, supporting the development of contextual thresholds (e.g., CNS ≥ 0.70) for reporting practices. Practical recommendations include supplementing mean scores with distributional information or using median and interquartile ranges when consensus is low. These insights contribute to a more nuanced interpretation of group-level metrics in educational and organizational contexts, emphasizing the importance of both methodological rigor and contextual sensitivity.