Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessment And Benchmarks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District 59 presents fall benchmarking: iReady shows gains, but gaps remain in middle grades
Summary
District staff told the board that iReady fall benchmarking and adjusted national norms show gains—particularly in math—while underscoring that 41% of eighth graders are three or more years behind on grade-level placement measures; administrators described interventions, WIN blocks, and a small tutoring pilot.
District 59 administrators presented fall benchmarking results tied to iReady data at the Oct. 2 school board meeting, framing the assessment as a tool to set individualized learning targets and to guide MTSS resource allocation.
"We went down the iReady path because of COVID—s disruption," presenter Tom Luloff said, explaining that the assessment provides a computer-adaptive measure used districtwide to identify students' strengths and needs.
Key findings and context: Luloff said the district is using fall norms for grade-level placement that can make early-year percentages look more pronounced; on some measures the district outpaced national norms, particularly in mathematics. He summarized targeted indicators: typical year growth, stretch growth and the KPI goal that 80% of students be supported in Tier 1 instruction.
The presentation included concerning subgroup and grade-level details. Luloff highlighted that in district 59 "for this fifth grade group, 18 percent are three or more grade levels below" on the iReady scale, and later noted that "in district 59 this fall, 41% of our kids in eighth grade of the 574 were three or more years behind." Staff emphasized that being behind on grade-level placement does not automatically equate to being in the lowest (Tier 3) intervention group; many factors (special education, newcomers) affect placement.
Interventions and next steps: Administrators described the WIN block (a daily 30-minute targeted grouping period) used to differentiate instruction and detailed an online tutoring pilot for students at the threshold between Tier 1 and Tier 2. They also cited a multi-year implementation of new curriculum resources and said continued data disaggregation and caution with small sample sizes is necessary when interpreting school-level or program-level comparisons.
Why it matters: The KPI and benchmarking data guide resource allocation, teacher supports and curricular adjustments. The board asked for further clarity on the metrics used to evaluate programs (monolingual, ESL, and dual-language) and requested ongoing reporting as staff refine assessment practices.
Closing: Administrators said they will continue to update the board three times a year with benchmark data and will provide more disaggregated and contextualized reporting on program evaluation measures.
