District 65 student performance has declined in math during the past two years — the COVID-19 years — but has remained relatively constant in reading. This is consistent with national trends.
Across the country, the pandemic has had a social and emotional impact on students, parents, teachers and administrators, and has also had an impact on student learning.
RoundTable published an article on February 24, 2022 showing trends in student performance on five Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) tests given to students in District 65 over the past two years. This article looks at how students in District 65 are doing academically after two years of the pandemic, this time with the benefit of student scores on the recent Winter MAP test. All data were obtained through Freedom of Information requests.
The pandemic hit in March 2020, and schools in District 65 were closed for face-to-face learning from mid-March 2020 to mid-February 2021. Parents had the option to send their children back to schools for face-to-face learning in mid-2020. 2020. February 2021, or continue remote learning for the remainder of the school year. At the start of the 2021-22 school year, all students were required to return to face-to-face learning.
conquest status
The chart below shows the percentage of third- to eighth-grade students, by subgroup, who scored at or above the 50th percentile in reading and math on the winter MAP tests given in the 2021-2022 school year (SY’22). The graph shows that a greater percentage of students in each subgroup scored at or above the 50th percentile in reading than in math. The biggest difference is for black students: 43% scored above 50º percentile in reading, but only 30% in math. In addition, there remain large gaps in achievement between subgroups.
The charts below show achievement trends for three subgroups. The first graph shows the percentage of black, Hispanic, and white students who scored at or above the 50th percentile in reading on six different MAP tests taken in the past two years. The next graph shows the same type of information, but for math.
Superintendent Devon Horton told RoundTable in an email: “Each of the referenced MAP windows paints a picture of academic learning at various stages of the pandemic, when students were in very different learning environments. The pandemic has forced all districts to continually adapt to meet evolving health guidelines, maximize instructional opportunities and work to meet the diverse learning and socio-emotional needs of students.”
- The Winter MAP test on the SY’ 20 is the only one that was administered before the pandemic.
- The SY’21 MAP fall and winter tests were administered while all of District 65 was in remote learning. Dr. Horton said that period was the height of the pandemic and “there was notable variability in home testing conditions and reduced students in testing.”
- The Spring SY’21 MAP test was administered shortly after schools in District 65 reopened schools for optional face-to-face learning.
- The SY’22 fall and winter tests were administered after schools were fully open for face-to-face learning. Dr. Horton said SY’22 “is a better measure of the individual and collective impact of the pandemic.”
The graphs reflect that, for reading, there were some slight variations from test to test in the percentage of students who reached 50º percentile, but the trendline is relatively flat. Changes over the two-year period are relatively small for each subgroup.
For mathematics, there is a more pronounced downward trend; and black and Latino students declined more than white students. Latinx students, however, showed a 4 percentage point increase on the SY’22 winter MAP test.
Meeting growth goals
The charts below show the percentage of students who achieved the NWEA growth goals in reading and math on the Winter SY’22 MAP test. NWEA growth targets represent the “average” growth of students in the same grade who started at the same performance level.
The graph shows that a higher percentage of students in each subgroup reached their growth targets in reading than in math.
The graph also shows that the difference in the percentages of students who reach the growth targets by subgroup is not as large as the difference in the percentages of students who reach 50º percentile.
For example, 63% of white students reached their reading growth target, compared to 59% of Hispanic students and 57% of black students.
On the other hand, 90% of white students scored at or above the 50th percentile in reading, compared with 50% of Hispanic students and 43% of black students.
The charts below show trends in meeting growth targets for three subgroups. The first graph shows that over the past two years there has been a significant decline in the percentage of black, Hispanic, and white students who have reached their math growth goals in SY’21; and that black students had another significant decline in SY’22. Latino and white students, however, showed increases in SY’ 22.
For reading, there was a decline in the percentage of black, Hispanic, and white students who reached growth targets in AE’21, but an increase for all subgroups in AE’22.
Statistically, 50% of students are expected to achieve the desired growth. Therefore, if 50% of a subgroup of students achieves the desired growth, the subgroups will perform on the national average to that extent. It is important to recognize, however, that even if a student achieves the desired growth year after year, it does not mean that the student will be on track for college preparation at the end of eighth grade.
Achieving desired growth means that a student has achieved average growth (not accelerated growth) and is more in line with maintaining the status quo. The NWEA says in its 2020 normative study that if a school district is interested in accelerating student growth or filling performance gaps, it can set custom accelerated growth goals. District 65 did not. To learn more about this, click on the link to the story referenced below.
The academic performance goal contained in the new five-year agreement between the School Board and Superintendent Devon Horton is for the percentage of students achieving desired growth to increase by 3% each year. It does not foresee accelerated growth. Still, the District Consolidated Plan FY’23 presented to the School Board on April 18 recognizes that “there is a need to accelerate learning for” black, Latino and low-income students.
Commenting on the data, Dr. Horton said: “While in previous years it was beneficial to look at data from winter to winter, it is currently difficult to accurately measure or regard the data as truly representative of student progress. We also recognize that while the pandemic has had profound impacts, it is our current reality and our students need us more than ever. Our educators, support staff, and leaders are giving 110% to driving student growth and filling learning gaps brought on by Covid-19. Our district team has met and continues to meet with all school leadership teams to provide further support and better address the student needs being identified.”
The Doctor. Horton added, “Students are taking the Spring MAP assessment now and it will give us a clearer picture of students’ academic learning needs and opportunities for continued growth and instructional support.”
Higher falls in math
In District 65, it appears that the pandemic has had a more significant impact on student achievement in math than reading. This is consistent with findings made by NWEA researchers in a report released in December 2022. The NWEA report found that after most schools were closed to face-to-face learning starting in March 2020, students began the year 2020-21 academic year with reading performance “approximately comparable to a typical year, but this math performance was 5 to 10 percentage points lower, with students in lower grades experiencing larger declines.”
At the start of the 2021-22 school year, the NWEA report found that performance in reading dropped 3 to 7 percentage points and performance in math dropped 9 to 11 percentage points. “In other words, we found ongoing evidence of meaningful unfinished learning.”
The NWEA report also found that the percentage of students who achieved target growth in reading between Fall 2019 and Fall 2021 approached pre-pandemic growth rates; but that math earnings were well below average. “This finding suggests that school-related interruptions continue to have a more significant impact on students’ math skills/content acquisition compared to reading and highlights the need for continued focus on supporting math skill development.”
The NWEA report also said the biggest declines in performance during the pandemic were seen for black and Latino students.
A May 2022 study, “The Consequences of Remote and Hybrid Instruction During the Pandemic,” published by a group of researchers at the Harvard Education Policy Research Center also found, using MAP data, that students lost ground during pandemic.
“The main effects of hybrid and remote instruction are negative,” the report said, “implying that even in low-poverty (high-income) schools, students fell short of growth expectations when their schools became remote or hybrid.”
The report concluded that if schools were closed to face-to-face learning in March 2020 and if students participated in face-to-face learning for most of the 2020-21 school year, they would miss about 20% of the expected growth in math over the two years. of the school year. studying. If students did remote learning for most of 2020-21, they missed up to 50% of their one-year math learning during the two-year study period. The study found that learning loss in reading followed a similar pattern but was less acute.
Harvard researchers also found that low-income students, as well as black and Latino students, have lagged even further in the past two years compared to high-income, white or Asian students.
The researchers theorized that learning losses in math may have been greater than in reading, saying, “While students learn math primarily in school, students’ learning in reading may depend more on parental involvement at home. Thus, the contrast between math and reading findings for face-to-face districts may reflect differential family tensions outside of school.”
