District 11 midyear STAR data shows flat year-to-year gains; board hears expansion of PD, coaching and Panorama student voice results

District academic staff presented midyear STAR assessment results and related improvement strategies at a Board of Education work session, reporting continued within-year growth but little year-to-year systemic improvement overall and outlining an expanded professional development (PD) and coaching plan to accelerate student progress.

District presenters said English language arts (ELA) performance remains higher than math and that median growth percentiles (MGP) and student growth percentiles (SGP) show strong within-year movement but “year to year growth … is completely flat,” a presenter said. The presentation identified watch-list schools in both ELA and math — named during the briefing as Adams, Galileo and Mitchell among others — and noted specific subgroup gaps for students receiving free or reduced-price lunch (FRL) and students with disabilities.

“Access to high quality instruction is the number one way to student achievement,” Superintendent Gong said during discussion of strategies to accelerate growth, adding the district must consider how quickly it wants to close gaps and whether policy steps such as required summer learning should be considered.

PD, coaching and implementation: District leaders described a multi-part strategy to push results: eight additional PD days this year, targeted “best first instruction” work for ELA and math, an expansion of instructional coaching (including area instructional coaches who coach coaches), and embedded high-school coaches. Interim chief of coaching and development Carol Fry said the district has nearly doubled professional learning sessions year to date and emphasized follow-up and classroom implementation as essential. “Professional development is not a cost. It’s an investment in the transformative power of education,” Fry said.

Evidence and correlations: Presenters said the district is tracking classroom-level curriculum use — for example, Eureka Math module completion — and reporting a strong correlation (described as about 0.8) between faithful curriculum implementation and improved assessment results on STAR and CMAS. Staff said they will provide modules-vs.-outcomes analysis and cohort modeling on request.

Student voice (Panorama): Valerie Skates and Chris Brandt presented Panorama survey results on student self-efficacy, learning strategies and engagement. They told the board that changes Panorama made to some question wording affect trend lines and that response rates remain strong. The presenters highlighted increases in belonging for grades 6–12 and cited several school-level “bright spots” where policy changes (for example, a cell-phone policy) and instructional models corresponded with improved student engagement.

Subgroup tensions and next steps: Board members asked for more granular analyses of subgroup outcomes, including side-by-side comparisons of FRL and race/ethnicity results; staff said they would provide those data in future reports. Directors also pressed staff on whether staffing changes, ESSER funding reductions and teacher turnover were constraining progress. Staff said some gains are tied to schools that implemented curriculum and coaching with fidelity and that targeted follow-up — including training long-term substitutes in core curricula — is now part of the plan.

What’s next: Staff committed to return with a timeline and additional analyses, including cohort modeling and a review of how PD and coaching activity correlate to school- and student-level outcomes. The board discussed invitations for members to visit model classrooms where the district’s instructional strategies are in use.