Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Northern Lehigh board hears midyear student data, debates how to evaluate math pilot programs
Summary
The Northern Lehigh School Board received midyear assessment reports from elementary, middle and high school staff and discussed how to compare short-term pilot results across different instructional programs; administrators said they can produce comparative data but cautioned about interpretation given differing tools and limited implementation time.
The Northern Lehigh School Board on Feb. 10 reviewed middle-of-year student assessment data from Peters Elementary, Slatington Elementary, Northern Lehigh Middle School and Northern Lehigh High School and spent more time discussing how to evaluate two math pilot programs than on any immediate curriculum change.
Dr. Stoker introduced curriculum items and the midyear assessment slideshow and turned the presentation over to building administrators. Mr. Schneider presented Peters Elementary’s DIBELS and IXL-based math benchmarks, noting growth in several early-literacy measures and describing that the district is piloting two alternative math programs alongside its current core (Eureka). He told the board that administrators aim to select a program that fits the district’s classrooms and teachers.
Board members asked whether results from the different pilot programs and the legacy curriculum could be compared. Mr. Schneider and Mr. Pine said the district can pull IXL and pilot-tool data for a cross-cohort comparison, but warned that each program uses different data tools and that short pilot windows and implementation curves make interpretation difficult. “You can pull that data,” Mr. Pine said, “but I would hazard against us making the program decision based solely on IXL outcomes from a partial-year pilot.”
High school presenters showed algebra-focused IXL results that reflect a small, specific cohort (largely freshmen taking algebra this semester) and explained the district will present broader high‑school math results in the spring when yearlong courses can be compared. Administrators emphasized that proficiency charts can mask substantial within-student growth: some students in red proficiency bands have gained multiple grade levels in a single semester even if they remain below proficiency thresholds.
The board asked for additional disaggregated information. Administrators agreed to pull comparative reports across the three data sources in time for future committee and board discussions but reiterated that interpretation will require context from teacher feedback, implementation fidelity and other performance measures. The district said it plans to report end-of-year benchmark data after spring testing and intends to include teacher recommendations when it brings a program choice forward.
The board also approved routine agenda items including minutes, personnel recommendations, curriculum proposals and financial items during the same meeting; those votes did not change the timeline for a potential math curriculum decision.
The district said final decisions about adopting a new math program will follow additional analysis, teacher input and time to assess implementation.
