Huge percentages of District 65 students are not ready for the next … – Evanston RoundTable

Results on the 2023 Illinois Assessment of Readiness (IAR) show that by one measure, District 65 students may have recovered the learning lost in English Language Arts (ELA) due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and that they have mostly recovered the learning lost in math. But, the test results also show that most students are not meeting expectations in ELA and math. The Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) says meeting expectations means a student has demonstrated “readiness” for the next grade level and is “likely on track for college and careers.”

For example, 81% of Black students, 72% of Hispanic students, 46% of Asian students and 36% of white students did not meet expectations on the 2023 IAR in ELA – and are thus viewed as not being ready for the next grade level and not on track to college and career readiness in ELA.

The data is more stark for Black and Hispanic students in math.

In addition, there appears to be a trend that significantly lower percentages of eighth graders are meeting expectations than third graders, suggesting that students may be losing ground after third grade.

A relatively new measure added to the IAR shows that District 65 students are showing slightly lower growth than their peers statewide. The growth percentile for Black students was 44.2% in ELA and 42.8% in math on the 2023 IAR. A percentile score may range from 1 to 99, with 50 being the score for a typical student.

Examining achievement data

In presenting achievement reports in prior periods, School District 65 has said, “When aggregate data show that members of a particular student demographic group score below benchmarks, these outcomes reflect opportunity gaps faced by marginalized groups due to institutional racism in the education system and for many families insufficient social and economic supports. These results should not be used to draw conclusions about the efforts, abilities, or strengths of these students or their families.”

In a study published in September 2019, Sean Reardon, Professor of Poverty and Inequality in Education at Stanford University, and his co-authors say, “We examine racial test score gaps because they reflect racial differences in access to educational opportunities.

“By ‘educational opportunities,’ we mean all experiences in a child’s life, from birth onward, that provide opportunities for her to learn, including experiences in children’s homes, childcare settings, neighborhoods, peer groups, and their schools. This implies that test score gaps may result from unequal opportunities either in or out of school; they are not necessarily the result of differences in school quality, resources, or experiences.”

In that spirit, the scores reported in this article measure how well School District 65 and the Evanston community as a whole are providing equitable opportunities to the children in Evanston. [1]

The Illinois Assessment of Readiness

The Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) began administering the IAR in 2019. The test measures how well school districts and communities are doing in preparing students for college and careers. It is Illinois’ annual test administered in compliance with the federal Every Child Succeeds Act. PARCC was the state-mandated test before then.

While PARCC and IAR are different tests, IAR is essentially a shorter test, and the scoring is aligned.  

There are five performance levels for the IAR:
• Level 5: Exceeded expectations
• Level 4: Met expectations
• Level 3: Approached expectations
• Level 2: Partially met expectations
• Level 1: Did not yet meet expectations.

“Students performing at levels 4 and 5 met or exceeded expectations, have demonstrated readiness for the next grade level/course, and, ultimately, are likely on track for college and careers,” says ISBE.

In 2019, before the pandemic, the benchmark scores to meet expectations on the IAR corresponded to the 62nd percentile in ELA, and to the 68th percentile in math. So, in that year, about 38% of the students in the state met standards in ELA and 32% in math.

The Impact of Covid

One way that has been used to measure the impact of the COVID pandemic on student learning is to compare how District 65 students did on the 2019 IAR test, and how they did on the 2021 – 2023 IAR tests.

The 2019 IAR was administered before the outbreak of the pandemic. But because of the pandemic, IAR was not administered in 2020. District 65 was closed for in-person learning during the 2020-21 school year until Feb. 16, 2021, when a limited number of students were permitted to return for in-person learning for a partial or full day. Students who needed supports were given a priority. The 2021 IAR was given to only 46% of the district’s third- through eighth-graders – those who had returned for in-person learning, many of whom needed supports. It is unclear if that group of students was a representative sample of all of the district’s third through eighth graders.

District 65 was open for in-person learning for the entire 2021-22 school year. The 2022 IAR was administered in the spring of 2022, and the 2023 IAR was administered in the spring of 2023.

The chart below shows the percentage of all District 65 students who met or exceeded expectations in ELA and math on the 2019 and the 2021 – 2023 IAR tests, and it also shows the percentage of all students in the state who met or exceeded expectations on the same tests.

On the 2023 IAR, 44.9% of School District 65’s students met or exceeded expectations on ELA, compared with 43.8% on the 2019 IAR, a 1.1 percentage point increase. District 65 students thus did better in ELA in 2023, than they did just prior to the pandemic. In a sense they recouped any learning loss incurred as a result of the pandemic.

For math, 41.4% met or exceeded expectations on the 2023 IAR, compared with 45.2% on the 2019 IAR, a 2.8 percentage point drop.

District 65 students, on average, did better than the average student statewide. On a statewide basis, the percentage of students who met or exceeded expectations in ELA declined by 2.4 percentage points in ELA and by 4.7 percentage points in math between 2019 and 2023.

District 65 Scores by Racial/Ethnic Group

The charts below show the percentage of District 65’s white, Black, Hispanic, Asian and low-income students who met or exceeded expectations on the 2019 and 2021 – 2023 IARs and who are thus viewed as being on track for college and career readiness. The data is taken from ISBE’s website.

The data show three key things:

• Between 2019 and 2023, the results on the ELA portion of the test were mixed. White, Black and Hispanic students showed slight gains between the 2019 and 2023 tests, and Asian students showed declines.
• For math, there were declines across the board.  
• Opportunity gaps persist. The percentages of Black, Hispanic and low-income students who met or exceeded expectations in ELA and math are well below the percentages of white and Asian students who met or exceeded expectations. For example, 64% of white students met expectations in ELA on the 2023 IAR, compared with 19% of Black students.

Longer-term trends since 2015

The charts below show the percentage of white, Hispanic, Black and low-income students who met or exceeded expectations in ELA and math on the PARCC test for the years 2015 through 2018 and on the IAR test in 2019 and 2021 through 2023.

The charts show that wide opportunity gaps between white and Black and Hispanic students persist. (Data for Asian students was not included because the RoundTable lacked data for Asian students for the entire period.)

The top chart shows that the percentage of white students who met or exceeded expectations in ELA declined steadily between 2015 and 2019, and then dropped significantly in 2021 – due to the pandemic. By 2023, white students recouped the losses from 2019. But, between 2015 and 2023, the percentage of white students who met or exceeded expectations dropped from 70% to 64%.

The percentage of Black and Hispanic students who met or exceeded expectations in ELA in 2023 was the same as in 2015.

On the math portion of the test, there were declines for each subgroup during the pandemic and then gains on the 2022 and 2023 IAR. But, between 2015 and 2023, there were declines in math for each subgroup: White – 70% to 63%; Black – 15% to 12%; and Hispanic – 26% to 22%.

The charts also show that large opportunity gaps have persisted since 2015. The reduction in the gaps is relatively small and due primarily to a decline in the percentage of white students meeting or exceeding expectations on the tests.

One could view the increases in 2022 and 2023 as simply a recoupment of the losses incurred in 2020 and 2021 due to the pandemic. Whether that is the case or whether the increases in 2022 and 2023 represent the start of an upward trend that will continue remains to be seen.

The above charts go back to 2015. Data shows, though, that much higher percentages of District 65 students were on track to college-readiness in the years 2012-2014. [2]

Performance in three lower achievement levels

The above charts show the percentages of District 65 students who scored in the top two performance levels, and who thus met or exceeded state standards and are deemed to be on track to college readiness. The charts below show the percentages of District 65 students who scored in each of the bottom three performance levels in ELA and math on the 2023 IAR.

Among other things, the charts show that very high percentages of Black, Hispanic and low-income students scored in the bottom two performance levels, meaning that they have not yet “approached” meeting learning standards for their grade level.

For example, 58% of Black students fall into the bottom two performance levels in ELA – 30% in the “did not meet” level and 28% in the “partially met” level. Thirty-one percent of Hispanic students fall into the bottom two performance levels.

The percentages of Black and Hispanic students who fall into the bottom two categories are higher for math: 66% of Black students, and 51% of Hispanic students.

The data show that high percentages of the District’s Black and Hispanic students need significant supports.

Declines Between 3rd and 8th grades

The charts below show the percentages of the district’s third and eighth graders, by subgroup, who met or exceeded expectations in ELA and math on the 2023 IAR tests. Across the board, higher percentages of third graders met expectations on the tests than eighth graders. The differences are greater on the math portion of the test than on ELA, particularly for Black, Hispanic and Asian students.

For example:

• 60.3% of white third graders met expectations in ELA in 2023, but only 57% of white eighth graders met expectations in ELA.
•  18% of Black third graders met expectations in math, but only 8.7% of Black eighth graders met expectations in math.
• 65% of Asian eighth graders met expectations in math, but only 44% of Asian eighth graders met expectations in math.

Obviously, this is not a same student cohort analysis, but the pattern (and the long-term trends discussed below) suggest that students may be losing ground after third grade.

The charts also show that significant achievement gaps exist even at third grade. For example, 60% of white third graders met expectations in third grade, compared to 19% of Black third graders.

The charts below show the percentage of all third and eighth graders who met or exceeded expectations in ELA and math between 2015 and 2023.  The charts show that through this entire period, higher percentages of third graders met or exceeded expectations on PARCC or IAR, than eighth graders.

Significantly, the trendline showing the percentage of eighth graders who met or exceeded expectations reflects a decline between 2015 and 2023. In ELA, the decline went from 49% to 38%. In math, the decline went from 51% to 33%.

Growth Percentiles

IAR provides growth percentiles that show the growth of students relative to other students in the state who had a similar scale score in the preceding school year(s).

A growth percentile score may range from 1 to 99, with higher numbers representing higher growth and lower numbers representing lower growth.

ISBE says a student growth percentile of 50 means the student is in the 50th percentile: 50% of students had less gain in scores over time, and 50% had a greater gain in scores over time. A score of 50 represents typical (or average) growth.

On the 2023 IAR, the growth percentile of all students in District 65 in ELA was 49.5. In math, it was 47.9. Thus, District 65 students had slightly less growth than other students in the state.

The chart below shows the growth percentile of District 65 students, by subgroup, in ELA and Math on the 2023 IAR. The growth percentiles of white, Hispanic and Asian students are either above or close to the average score of 50. The growth percentile of Black students was lower.

On the 2022 and 2023 IAR, Black students’ growth percentile in ELA was 42.4 and 44.2 respectively. In math it was 41.2 and 42.8.  

Impact of income

Extensive research shows there is a correlation between household income and standardized test scores, and that income levels impact the opportunities that a student has. See e.g., “New SAT Data Highlights the Deep Inequality at the Heart of American Education,” NY Times, Oct. 24, 2023.

The degree of income also matters. In a 2013 essay titled “No Rich Child Left Behind,” Professor Reardon noted that a household’s degree of wealth and the opportunities it affords may make a significant difference. He says, “The rich now outperform the middle class by as much as the middle class outperform the poor.”

A 2020 report prepared by a Task Force of the California University Academic Council says, “Enormous differences in income and wealth along lines of race mean that parents have very different resources to invest in their children to prepare them for college. Among these material resources are private schools, tutoring, extracurricular classes, sports teams, educational materials (including test prep), and educational experiences like travel. And the differences in these expenditures have been growing over time, widening the expenditure and opportunity gaps between URMs and others.”

A 2023 report prepared by Raj Chetty and colleagues at Opportunity Insights based at Harvard University, found that the degree of wealth makes a difference in students’ academic performance. The report, Appendix Table 4, reflects that 64% of the students from households with an income in the top 95% of the nation scored 22 or higher on the ACT; 19% of the students from households with incomes in the 40-50% range scored a 22 or higher on the ACT; and 8% of the students from households with incomes in the 20-30% range scored a 22 or higher on the ACT.

The report also found, “Among available indicators, SAT/ACT scores remain one of the best indicators of student success.”

According to the District’s report card posted by ISBE, 40% of the District’s students are from low-income households. The District does not regularly report income status by race/ethnicity.

The most recent data available to the RoundTable shows that 70% of Black students attending District 65 in 2017 qualified for free lunch and an additional 6% qualified for reduced-fee lunch, for a combined total of 76%. By comparison, 6% of white students qualified for free or reduced-fee lunch.

The beige bars in many of many of the above achievement charts show the correlation between the scores of Black students and students from low-income households. At least one cause of the achievement gap may be the difference in opportunity provided to students from low-income households and those from higher income households.

The District’s Achievement Report

In December 2022, administrators adopted a set of five-year academic goals to use in evaluating the District’s new five-year strategic plan. Two of the eight goals were to increase the percentage of students meeting/exceeding expectations on the IAR in ELA and in math from 40% to 55%.  

The other six academic goals relate to increasing the percentage of students who meet the SAT’s benchmarks for college readiness and who meet growth targets for the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) test, and to decrease the percentage of students in the bottom quartile on the MAP test. For more on the goals, click here and here.

Members of the District 65 School Board did not discuss the goals in public and have not adopted them as Board goals. But no Board member objected to the goals when they were presented by administrators.

On Nov. 6, 2023, District administrators presented an 80-page report on the progress made in meeting the goals (including the academic goals) presented by administrators, but the only data presented concerning student performance on the 2023 IAR, the results of which were posted by ISBE on Oct. 27, were that 45% percent of the District’s students met expectations in ELA on the 2023 IAR, and 41% met expectation in math.

The District is scheduled to present its annual achievement report in January, which may include additional analysis of student results on the 2023 IAR.

……………………

Footnotes

[1] There are often claims that standardized tests are biased, and historically many researchers have agreed. Whether standardized tests currently being administered are biased is an important question that deserves a close look. On its website, ISBE provides as a resource for the IAR the New Meridian Technical Report 2020–2021 Alternate Blueprint (isbe.net), which explains how the items (or questions) for the IAR were developed. The report, dated Feb. 28, 2022, summarizes the efforts made to remove any bias from the test. It says at pages 15-16:

“Educators and community members make up the committee that reviews items and tasks to confirm that there are no bias or sensitivity issues that would interfere with a student’s ability to achieve his or her best performance. The committee reviewed items and tasks to evaluate adherence to the Fairness and Sensitivity Guidelines, and to ensure that items and tasks do not unfairly advantage or disadvantage one student or group of students over another. Bias and Sensitivity Committee members made edits and modifications to items and passages to eliminate sources of bias and improve accessibility for all students.

“Following the field test, educator and bias committee members met to evaluate test items and associated performance data with regard to appropriateness, level of difficulty, and potential gender, ethnic, or other bias, and then recommended acceptance or rejection of each field-test item for inclusion on an operational assessment. The Data Review Committee also made recommendations that items be revised and re-field tested. Items that were approved by the committee are eligible for use on operational summative assessments.”

In recent years, there has been extensive research of certain standardized tests, particularly college admission tests, to evaluate whether they are biased. Three extensive studies of the SAT concluded that the test did not contain bias against Black or Hispanic students, but rather it over-predicted how Black students would perform in the first year of college. An article about the studies is available here.

In addition, the recent study conducted by the Task Force of California University Academic Council found that “standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At [University of California], test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation.” 

The Task Force also found, “In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income.”

The Task Force added, “California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study.”

At page 83, the Task Force considered studies about whether there was bias in the SAT and said, “So, in three of four cases (math for both racial/ethnic comparisons and verbal for Latino/white comparisons) no evidence of racial bias emerges. In the fourth case, black/white comparison on the SAT verbal test, some evidence of bias exists, but the bias is against white students on some questions against black students in other cases. Furthermore, our analysis of the results suggests that for this one, the effects are far too small to explain much of the SAT gap in test scores between black and white students.”

Of course, standardized tests at the K-8 grade levels are not used to determine admissions to college. But the point is that standardized tests are predictive, and they serve an important role in assessing whether a school district is educating all of its students at high academic levels and preparing them for college and a career.

In a November 2020 letter sent to the Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, a dozen civil rights, social justice, disability rights and education advocacy organizations across the country said, “For the parents, families, and communities we serve, the data from annual statewide assessments are an important source of information that tell them how well the education system is serving their children. The use of standardized tests has helped reveal longstanding achievement gaps and racial disparities in academic opportunity and provided the evidence used by civil rights groups to advocate for change. Systems of accountability in education serve as a critical tool to ensuring the most vulnerable students and schools receive the support and resources they need to succeed.”

[2] In August 2011, the District 65 School Board set a goal that students have the necessary skills and knowledge to be on track for college readiness. At that time, the Board decided to measure college readiness using benchmarks identified for the Illinois Standard Achievement Test (ISAT) by Paul Zavitkovsky of the Urban Education Leadership Program at the University of Illinois-Chicago. The ISAT was Illinois’ mandated test before PARCC.

The benchmark scores identified by Zavitkovsky for the ISAT corresponded to the 60th Illinois percentile in reading and the 68th Illinois percentile in math. The scores were predictive of having a 50% chance of obtaining a B in a related course in the first year of college. 

On an overall basis, the benchmark scores to meet or exceed standards on the PARCC and the 2019 IAR correspond to the 62nd Illinois percentile in reading and the 68th Illinois percentile in math – virtually the same as those identified by Zavitkovsky for the ISAT.

While the percentile ranks for college and career readiness match up for the ISAT, PARCC and 2019 IAR tests, the charts below show that significantly lower percentages of District 65 students met the benchmarks for college readiness on the 2017 and 2018 PARCC and the 2019 IAR tests, than on the 2012, 2013 and 2014 ISATs.

For example:

• On the 2014 ISAT, 84% of white students met the college readiness benchmark in reading; on the 2019 IAR, only 63% did.
• On the 2014 ISAT, 29% of Black students met the college readiness benchmark in ELA; on the 2019 IAR, only 18% did.

The data for the ISATs in the charts below was taken from District 65’s achievement reports. The data for PARCC and IAR was taken from ISBE’s website.

For more data on this, click here.