School City of Chicago trustees reviewed a packet of state test scores and a return-on-investment summary for Sylvan Learning Center at the board’s Sept. 4 work session, and district staff said the available data do not prove Sylvan alone caused students’ improvements.
The district presentation included iRead, iLearn and NWEA (Northwest Evaluation Association) figures and a page labeled “return on investment” that compares students who participated in Sylvan programming with broader campus outcomes. The staff presenter told trustees 155 students were enrolled in Sylvan during 2024–25 and that 67 of those students (about 43 percent) passed the iRead.
Board members pressed for comparisons between Sylvan participants and students who did not receive Sylvan services. Trustee Chelsea Gomez asked for numbers showing how many students not enrolled in Sylvan passed the state tests; the presenter said the district team can produce that comparison.
District staff cautioned the board against attributing gains exclusively to Sylvan. “So when we were talking about is there a significant effect from Sylvan contributing to our students' passing, we can't isolate and say, yes. It is because they were in Sylvan because we had our staff delivering the instruction,” a staff member said during the meeting. The presenter explained Sylvan provided curriculum and teacher training while district teachers continued delivering instruction.
Board members also discussed the data displays: NWEA RIT-band color coding, three-year trend lines for iLearn and iRead, and how the packet separates raw data by school. Trustees asked for clarification about which colors represent passing rates on various charts; staff walked trustees through the legend and pointed to specific pages for 2022–23 and 2023–24 comparisons.
Staff told the board Sylvan representatives were not able to attend the Sept. 4 meeting but indicated Sylvan would appear at a future work session or board meeting. The board asked district staff (Mr. Charis) to coordinate that follow-up so Sylvan can present and answer detailed methodological questions.
The packet included subgroup and per-school breakdowns (grade-level and building-level iLearn and NWEA data) and several Sylvan cohort counts the presenter read aloud: four cohort groups with enrollments and pass counts (for example, group sizes of 41 with 27 passing; 38 with 10 passing; 35 with 18 passing; 41 with 12 passing). Staff said Sylvan was used in the district for a short period (October–December of the prior year) and that the district used ESSER funds for the work.
Trustees requested additional analyses: a direct comparison of pass rates among students who did and did not participate in Sylvan, and a clearer separation of outcomes attributable to Sylvan curriculum versus district classroom instruction. District staff agreed to provide those breakdowns and to schedule a Sylvan presentation at an upcoming meeting.
Next steps: staff will prepare the requested comparison data and coordinate a Sylvan presentation at a future board meeting so trustees can ask vendor representatives about curriculum, teacher training, and evaluation methods.