Northshore School District reports modest gains in reading and math, flags widening gaps by grade and subgroup

Northshore School District leaders reported modest districtwide improvements in reading and math during a study session on the district’s Strategic Plan Goal 3, which focuses on “growth for every student and eliminating opportunity and outcome gaps.” Superintendent Tully and Chief Academic Officer Dr. Obadiah Dunham led a review of I‑Ready and Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA) results and said the data show small gains overall but persistent disparities by grade level and student group.

District staff said the district’s I‑Ready (K–8) and SBA (grades 3–10) data are consistent: some overall increases in the most recent year but widening differences that often originate in kindergarten and grow by middle school. Dr. Craig Foster, director of research and evaluation, noted that comparisons between I‑Ready and SBA show different trajectories — I‑Ready results can be more volatile because the tool is integrated with instruction, while SBA trends are flatter — but both show the same subgroup gaps.

Why it matters: staff said early disparities tend to widen as students age, especially at the elementary-to‑middle transition when instruction shifts from “learning to read” to “reading to learn.” The district identified kindergarten disparities that later grow in subsequent grades and highlighted that the percentage of students moving from “not meeting” to “meeting” grade‑level standards drops notably by grade 8.

What the data show: staff summarized three main findings. First, I‑Ready end‑of‑year data (K–8) included several year‑over‑year green‑highlighted gains in lower grades but some suspected sampling artifacts at grades 6–8; SBA reading and math data (grades 3–10) showed smaller but similar gains, including an increase from about 79% to about 80.4% meeting standard on one cross‑district reading comparison. Second, subgroup analyses showed consistently lower rates of meeting standards for students identified as English language learners (ELL), students receiving special education services, and low‑income students (the latter reported in SBA data). Third, gender differences appeared: females on average outperformed males in reading, while math showed a more mixed pattern with males slightly higher at some grades and parity at others.

District response and strategies: staff described a multi‑pronged approach centered on MTSS (multi‑tiered systems of support), curriculum alignment (K–5 adoption of the HMH reading curriculum and use of high‑leverage instructional practices), professional development, strengthened collaborative teams (guidance teams, PLCs), and targeted intervention blocks. Dr. Dunham said the district has been implementing MTSS infrastructure over several years and is now focusing on scaled components such as database‑driven decision making, continuum of supports and family engagement.

Middle‑school concern: presenters and board members stressed middle school as a priority. Staff pointed to declines in the proportion of students who move from below‑standard to meeting standard around grades 4–8 and noted that middle‑school models do not always preserve some elementary structures that help reading growth. The board asked staff to examine cohorts (for example, sixth graders’ elementary scores from 2016–17) to see whether changes in school structure correspond to performance shifts; staff agreed to explore that analysis in future reports.

Advanced courses and access: staff reported increases in algebra‑by‑grade‑8 completion and continued work to expand access to highly capable services across demographic groups. The board noted historical underrepresentation of low‑income students in highly capable programs and heard that outreach and identification practices have improved compared with several years ago.

Context and limits: presenters cautioned against overinterpreting small year‑to‑year changes and cited sampling differences between assessments; they also noted that some subgroup counts were too small to report (for example, non‑binary gender counts were suppressed). Dr. Foster noted measurement differences across tools and said using multiple sources helps validate patterns.

Looking ahead: staff said next steps include deeper classroom‑level inquiry to identify instructional drivers, continued MTSS refinement, additional middle‑school interventions (vocabulary and cross‑content language development were mentioned), and, where appropriate, curriculum pilots for math. Superintendent Tully and academic leaders committed to returning with more disaggregated cohort analyses in later strategic‑plan presentations.