Success For Each Child & Eliminate the Opportunity Gap by Leading with Racial Equity

Student Achievement

Unfortunately, there were several changes over the course of the Scholar Success grant that created challenges in understanding progress over time for student achievement.  The local evaluator changed between Year 2 (2018-19) and Year 3 (2019-20), and the new evaluator relied on the annual evaluation reports for results from each year and did not have access to the underlying data and analyses.  The measures for academic achievement also varied from year to year, as did the analytical approaches (e.g., though iReady data was provided by the district in Years 4 and 5, in one year the district-provided data was in the form of scores and in another year student performance was categorized as “2 or More Levels Below, 1 Level Below, or On Level.”) As such, data from these different measures are not comparable year to year and are presented separately from one another.  (See Limitations for more information.)   

The measures used for student achievement in Math and Reading each year are the following: 

  • 2017-18: School Pace Independent Reading Assessment (IRLA) and i-Ready4 
  • 2018-19: IRLA for Reading; for math, the following assessment standards by grade level (level of 1 was the lowest level and a level of 4 was the highest level): 
    • 2nd grade (P)2.0A.1 - Use addition and subtraction within 100 to solve one- and two-step word problems. 
    • 3rd grade (P)3.OA.8 - Solve two-step word problems using the four operations 
    • 4th grade (P)4.OA.3 - Solve multistep word problems posed with whole numbers and having whole-number answers using the four operations. 
    • 5th grade Sunnycrest (P)5.NF.2 - Solve addition and subtraction fraction word problems; Wildwood (P)5.NF.5 – Interpret multiplication as scaling 
  • 2019-20: No data available due to COVID-19 pandemic and school closures 
  • 2020-21: iReady assessment scores in Fall and Spring for Reading and Math5 
  • 2021-22: iReady assessment in Fall and Spring for Reading and Math6 with results indicated as “2 or More Levels Below, 1 Level Below, or On Level” 

Student Growth in Reading 

Given the change in measures each year, results relative to the objectives are presented for each year, and are not comparable across years.  The program’s objective for reading was At least 50% of regular attendees will increase achievement in reading/language arts from fall to spring. 

  • In 2017-18, 39% of students (30 out of 77 students) who could improve in reading did improve – below 50% benchmark Additional data available 
  • In 2018-19, 13% of students (13 out of 103) improved more than one grade level in reading – below 50% benchmark Additional data available 
  • In 2020-21, 65% of students (15 out of 23) improved more than one grade level in reading – above 50% benchmark Additional data available 
  • In 2021-22, 51% of students (28 out of 55) who could improve did improve – above 50% benchmark Additional data available 

Table 6: Student Growth in Reading, 2017-18 

Reading (regular attendees = 81) In spring these students had moved to these levels 
Below grade level  At grade level  Above grade level 
In fall   66 students were at below grade level and 25 improved   41  23 2
11 students were at grade level and 5 improved     6 5
4 students were above grade level     1 3

 

Table 7: Student Growth in Reading, 2018-19 

Reading  N or regular attendees with fall and spring scores  N who improved the equivalent of more than one grade level  Percent who improved  Target 
Sunnycrest 37 8 22% 50%
Wildwood 66 5 8% 50%

 

Table 8: Student Growth in Reading, 2020-21 

Reading  N or regular attendees with fall and spring scores  N who improved the equivalent of more than one grade level  Percent who improved  Target 
Sunnycrest 11 7 64% 50%
Wildwood 12 8 66% 50%

 

Table 9: Student Growth in Reading, 2021-22 

Reading (regular attendees = 55) In spring these students had moved to these levels 
2 or more levels below 1 level below On level
In fall   28 students were 2 or More Levels Below and 18 improved   10  14 4
18 students were 1 Level Below and 10 improved   1 7 10
9 students were on Level       9

Student Growth in Math 

As with reading, the measures used for understanding results related to the program’s goal to increase student achievement in math varied across the five years of the grant, based on the data provided by the school district.  Given the change in measures each year, results relative to the objectives are presented for each year, and are not comparable across years.  The program’s objective for math was At least 50% of regular attendees will increase achievement in math from fall to spring. 

  • In 2017-18: Overall, 15% of students who could improve in math did improve (11 out of 71 students) – below 50% benchmark Additional data available 
  • In 2018-19, 14% of students (12 out of 86) improved more than one grade level in math – below 50% benchmark Additional data available 
  • In 2020-21, 17% of students (4 out of 23) improved more than one grade level in math – below 50% benchmark Additional data available 
  • In 2021-22, 54% of students (28 out of 52) who could improve in math did improve – above 50% benchmark Additional data available

Table 10: Student Growth in Math, 2017-18

Math (regular attendees = 80) In spring these students had moved to these levels 
Below grade level  At grade level  Above grade level 
In fall   64 students were at below grade level and 6 improved   58 4 2
7 students were at grade level and 1 improved     6 5
9 students were above grade level       9

 

Table 11: Student Growth in Math, 2018-19 

Math N or regular attendees with fall and spring scores  N who improved the equivalent of more than one grade level  Percent who improved  Target 
Sunnycrest 19 5 26% 50%
Wildwood 67 7 10% 50%

 

Table 12: Student Growth in Math, 2020-21

Math N or regular attendees with fall and spring scores  N who improved the equivalent of more than one grade level  Percent who improved  Target 
Sunnycrest 11 2 18% 50%
Wildwood 12 2 17% 50%

 

Table 13: Student Growth in Math, 2021-22

Math (regular attendees = 55) In spring these students had moved to these levels 
2 or more levels below 1 level below On level
In fall   22 students were 2 or More Levels Below and 10 improved   12 9 1
30 students were 1 Level Below and 18 improved   1 11 18
3 students were on Level       3

4 Coordinators gathered scores in reading and math in the fall and again in the spring.  For reading, the assessment was the SchoolPace Independent Reading Level Assessment (IRLA) that uses a standards-based framework built on the Common Core State Standards for reading.  Scores are based on grade level equivalency, for example, with scores for first grade ranging from 1.00 to 1.99 and scores for second grade ranging from 2.00 to 2.99 and so on for other grades.  For math, the assessment was i-Ready, an adaptive diagnostic assessment.  Scores are given as levels so that a student in first grade is working at grade level when the assessment places them at Level 1, and a student in second grade is working at grade level when the assessment places them at Level 2, and so on.   

5 Growth was assessed using a standardized benchmark by grade for one-year of growth, per the following guidelines in Using i-Ready Diagnostic as a Student Growth Measure, accessed July 29, 2021 at http://blogs.svvsd.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/42/2017/03/iReady-Using-iReady-as-a-Student-Growth-Measure.pdf  

6 Growth was assessed based on district-provided data, with assessment scores categorized as 2 or More Levels Below, 1 Level Below, or On Level.  Improvement was measured based on increasing at least one category from Fall to Spring (e.g., from 2 or More Levels Below to 1 Level Below, or from 1 Level Below to On Level).