Growth of schools selected by fall achievement differs by subject: bottom 5% math schools tended to grow worse, while reading showed similar average growth¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2023: baselines and conditions change
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? When the top and bottom 5% of schools are reselected on fall achievement, students in the bottom 5% mathematics schools tended to grow worse, whereas average growth between top and bottom 5% was similar in reading, with more bottom 5% reading schools growing students significantly better or worse. → Andy Hegedus 2018
Evidence¶
Andy Hegedus 2018¶
Andy Hegedus, Ed.D. (2018). Evaluating the Relationships between Poverty and School Performance. NWEA Research Report. https://www.nwea.org/research-data-galleries/poverty-and-school-performance
q2 · i? · associational · r2
Observational re-analysis selecting top and bottom 5% of schools on fall achievement and comparing growth distributions (Figure 2.7). The article reports that in mathematics "students in the bottom 5% achieving schools tended to grow worse," while in reading average growth between top and bottom 5% was similar, with more bottom 5% schools growing students significantly better or worse.
"In mathematics, students in the bottom 5% achieving schools tended to grow worse, as shown in Figure 2.7. The average growth between the top and bottom 5% was similar in reading, with more bottom 5% schools growing students significantly better or worse than the top 5% achieving schools."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- About 46% of the lowest 5% achieving schools show the same growth as the highest 5% achieving schools — related
- In Boston high schools, top-third teachers produced six times the learning of bottom-third teachers in math and reading growth — related
- 77% of the lowest 5% achieving schools (spring reading) grow their typical student better than the 30th percentile — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
fall-achievement-selection-growth-subject-differences |
title |
Growth of schools selected by fall achievement differs by subject: bottom 5% math schools tended to grow worse, while reading showed similar average growth |
description |
Growth of schools selected by fall achievement differs by subject: bottom 5% math schools tended to grow worse, while reading showed similar average growth |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
mixed |
newest_evidence |
2018 |
recheck_by |
2023 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-09 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — andy-hegedus-2018 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.