Achievement of the lowest-growth schools varies dramatically, and fall achievement accounts for about 80% of spring achievement versus 14% for 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? Schools in the lowest 5% of growth show dramatically varied achievement levels, and about 80% of spring achievement is accounted for by fall achievement with about 14% accounted for by fall-to-spring growth. → 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
Correlational analysis of growth and achievement in the MAP Growth school sample, plus a comparison of the 5% lowest-growing schools (growth percentile at or below the 37th in mathematics and 33rd in reading, Figure 2.8). The article reports "about 80% of spring achievement is accounted for by fall achievement, with about 14% of spring achievement accounted for by fall-to-spring growth," and that the lowest-growth schools' achievement varied dramatically.
"about 80% of spring achievement is accounted for by fall achievement, with about 14% of spring achievement accounted for by fall-to-spring growth."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- 77% of the lowest 5% achieving schools (spring reading) grow their typical student better than the 30th percentile — related
- School poverty (%FRL) accounts for about 50% of a school's median student achievement — related
- School effectiveness estimates from fall-to-spring versus spring-to-spring growth correlate only moderately to strongly (.399 to .705), below the .90 threshold at which rank orderings diverge in accountability — related
- In the study data, mean spring grade-2 math RIT was 190.6 with linear spring-to-spring growth of 14.5 RIT, and mean fall-to-spring gain in grade-2 math was 13.4 RIT — related
- Growth rates varied tremendously between schools regardless of poverty, with top-quartile schools producing more than double the growth of the worst quartile — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
low-growth-schools-achievement-varies-growth-achievement-correlation |
title |
Achievement of the lowest-growth schools varies dramatically, and fall achievement accounts for about 80% of spring achievement versus 14% for growth |
description |
Achievement of the lowest-growth schools varies dramatically, and fall achievement accounts for about 80% of spring achievement versus 14% for growth |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
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.