Ends%202.1%20Part1%20Student%20Competence%20.pdf

Parent document: Regular Board Meeting and Study Session-04-17-2025.pdf

Text

BELLINGHAM SCHOOL DISTRICT
Bellingham, Washington

MEMORANDUM

TO: Board of Directors

FROM: Dr. Greg Baker, Superintendent
DATE: February 8, 2025

SUBJECT: Ends Monitoring Report 2.1, Part 1

Introduction

lam pleased to submit this Ends monitoring report (End 2.1 - Student Competence, Part 1)
to the school district’s board of directors. This annual report typically focuses on student
testing performance in English language arts (ELA), math and science and compares our
students’ Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA) test performance to comparable and
higher-performing districts.

This year’s report is our third since the pandemic of 2020-21. As the board will recall from
our reports over the past two years, student proficiency rates across the country, in our
state and within our district decreased following the pandemic, and much of this decline
has been attributed to the pandemic disruption of schools and learning. With a third full
year of post-pandemic test data, we again present proficiency and growth rates of
Bellingham students compared with other districts we have typically relied upon in prior
years’ Ends 2.1, Part 1 report.

The remaining Ends reports for this school year will be presented on the following
schedule:

e Wewill present Ends 2.1, Part 2 at the March 13, 2025, school board meeting
focused on graduation rates and students’ participation in post-secondary
education and career preparation in comparison with peer districts.

e The combined reports on Ends 1, 2 and 3 on evaluating the vision, mission and all
17 outcomes in The Bellingham Promise will be presented at the May 15, 2025,
school board meeting.

By way of reminder, the revised Ends 2.1 policy language focuses us on comparing
progress to districts that are demographically similar to Bellingham, as well as to districts
whose students typically outperform our students on the standardized test. The Ends 2.1
policy language follows:


STUDENT COMPETENCE

Ends 2.1: Consistent with the district Vision and Mission, all children of the Bellingham
Public Schools community will attain high academic achievement, develop essential skills
and attributes necessary for continuous growth in learning and graduate from high school
ready for participation in post-secondary education and career opportunities. All students
will succeed and grow regardless of ethnicity, socio-economic status, English language
proficiency or disabilities.

1. Every student’s achievement, skills and attributes will show continuous Significant
growth, and measures will exceed the Washington state benchmarks and be high
performing relative to similar students in demographically comparable districts, as
measured by state assessments and other available data, as appropriate.

2. Gaps in achievement, skills and attributes between groups of students will close.
For state or federally identified student populations, any gap in achievement will be
eliminated, and annual achievement will be greater than that of similar students in
demographically comparable districts.

3. Every student will make continuous advancement toward graduation. Measures of
on-time and extended graduation attainment will be high performing relative to
similar students in demographically comparable districts.

4. After graduation, student participation in post-secondary education and career
preparation shall increase and exceed participation in comparison to
demographically comparable districts.

While being held accountable to our demographically comparable districts, we also
continue to compare our progress to other district, state and national data that offer a
more comprehensive view of student competence.

In this Part 1 report, we focus on numbers one and two above. In our Ends 2.1 Part 2 report
presented next month, we focus on indicators three and four.

Bellingham and Comparable District Proficiency Comparisons

We first focus on Bellingham’s student assessment results in comparison to the group of
38 most comparable districts in Washington State. We reviewed whether re-evaluating the
comparable district criteria for school year 2023-24 would uncover significant changes or
additional districts to add to the list of 38 comparable districts. Table 1 displays the
parameters for the selection of the districts most comparable to Bellingham.

Table 1. Parameters for Comparable Districts Selection with 2023-24 Demographics

Criteria Parameters Low BPS High
Enrollment 75% above and below 2,879 11,515 20,151
% Free/Reduced Meal 50% above and below 21.5 43 64.5
% Asian and White 25% above and below 51.8 69 86.3
% Multilingual Learner 75% above and below 2.2 8.9 15.6
% Special Education 25% above and below 13.7 18.2 22.8


For the purpose of comparisons, our comparable group of districts remains at 38. We have
included Bellevue along with our own district data and the data representing the overall
state levels. For 2024 we added Central Kitsap, which is very similar in size and percentage
of students eligible for free/reduced meals and eliminated Bethel which has grown to a
point where it is much larger than our district.

Board members will also see some additional data included with this year’s Ends 2.1, part
1 report, as the State has begun to publish what they are calling “foundational grade level
knowledge” scores. Typically, data we have relied on to report student proficiency levels
has included only those scoring at a level three or four, out of a four-point scale, on the
state test. These students have been the group deemed to be meeting or exceeding state
standards. The publication of additional data on foundational grade level knowledge is the
State’s attempt to capture those students who are approaching standard, scoring at a level
2 but not yet at a level 3. The board will note that we have included a bit of this new
information in this year’s report but have separated out this new information from our
reporting on students who are meeting or exceeding standard.

A. English Language Arts (ELA) Proficiency Comparisons

We first compare the SBA ELA scores of those 38 comparable districts along with
Bellingham and the State, comparing the current year (2024) with scores from 2023.
Specifically, Figure 1 shows, on average, 52 percent of Bellingham students in Grades 3-8
and 10 met standard in ELA in 2024, putting our scores slightly above the state average,
and just below the middle of the group of 38 comparable districts.

Figure 1. 2024 English Language Arts — Percent Meeting Standards in Grades 3-8 and 10

100

90

80

70 b
60 Bellingham, 52 LE LEL
Washington, 50- a

40

30 +

20 +

10 -

Percent of Students Meeting Standard

0



Figure 2 provides the same view of ELA scores for 2023, and as is evident from the graphs,
our student scores positioned us in a similar spot relative to the state and comparable
districts in year-over-year comparisons.

Figure 2. 2023 English Language Arts — Percent Meeting Standards in Grades 3-8 and 10

100 -
90
a=)
G
8
2 80
£
“ 70
[sts]
& :
5 60 = Bellingham, 52
a Washington, 51 /
w 50 o o
2
o
so 40 o o
a
a
30
‘O
<
§ 20 4 4 4 LH 4 4
uu
oD
a 10 4 4
0
at OS A @ © @ FS SP FLL SD > 2 ¢ & bape ¢ oe Fe Pre FPG & #&
SEF SEES SEE SEES ESTEE ESE SES EES EE PEE ERE ES EES
S cs) ~ eS = . = x £
F EL EOE WEL EES ESS PC SES EET ECEL SE “FEE VEFES
¥ SF oe MS PE F PILE FTE “FS EK FSF WE CT Fo
3 & ES 2 & PF LoL F
¥ SS) g = fF oe =
e ws es)
es

Just for comparison purposes, we are also including the graph comparing our students’
scores on foundational grade level knowledge in ELA (as referenced earlier) for 2024.
Figure 3 displays a comparison bar chart of the percent of students meeting or
“approaching” standards in Grades 3-8 and 10. This chart includes the “approaching
standard” portion of students who scored a level 2 on the state assessment; this portion
that the state is referring to as possessing “foundational” knowledge is stacked on top of
the percentage meeting or exceeding standard for each district included in the chart. As is
evident from the graphic, adding the students who scored at level 2 on the SBA increases
the overall percentage by about 20 points. We believe the state’s purpose for including this
information in their reporting to districts is to help districts have a sense of how many
students are close to meeting standard. As such we include it here as a part of our report
this year.


Figure 3. 2024 English Language Arts - Foundational Grade Level Knowledge and Above
in Grades 3-8 and 10

100
90 .
Bellingham, 70
80 Washington, 71 ra r
Sy
70 i r
60 L

Percent of Students Meeting or Approaching Standard

o

50 E
40 L
30 t
20 -
10 E

As in prior years, we are also including here trend comparisons with a small group of
districts referred to as our “high bar” comparable districts. The districts included in this
group are Shoreline, Olympia and Bellevue, they are included specifically because their
student scores tend to be higher than those of our students in Bellingham. This serves an
aspirational purpose, and when we see trends that move us closer to or further from these
high bar comparable districts, which is worth noting. Figure 4 displays ELA data for
Bellingham, Washington state and our three “high bar” districts over the years 2022, 2023
and 2024.

Figure 4. English Language Arts — High Bar Comparison Trends in Grades 3-8 and 10

All Students in Grades 3-5 All Students in Grades 6-8 All Students in Grade 10

100 100 100
B 30 72 80 80 a a
3 68 68 70
c 65 65
s 60
& 58
wr
~ 60 53 a 60 St 60
= 47 48
ao
ovo
= 40 40 40
rr
Psy
o
4
2 20 20 20

0 0 0
Bellingham Bellevue Olympia Shoreline — State Bellingham Bellevue Olympia Shoreline State Bellingham Bellevue Olympia Shoreline State
2022 2023 m2024 m 2022 2023 m 2024 2022 2023 2024

The graphics in Figure 4 display trends in ELA scores for students in Grades 3-5 (left),
Grades 6-8 (middle) and Grade 10 (right). Bellingham’s percentage of students meeting
standard in Grades 3-5 held steady from 2023 to 2024 at 47 percent meeting standard


overall, while elementary grade band scores for students in Olympia, Bellevue and
Shoreline all experienced a small year-over-year drop. The percentage of Bellingham
students meeting standard in Grades 6-8 dipped slightly from 52 to 51, as did scores for
this grade band in Bellevue and Olympia, with Shoreline’s scores increased slightly to 68
percent meeting or exceeding standard in the middle grade years. Grade 10 percent of
Bellingham students meeting standard increased to 65 percent in 2024, as did scores in
two of the other high bar comparable districts, Olympia and Shoreline, while Bellevue’s
Grade 10 scores dropped by a small percent.

B. Math Proficiency Comparisons

Data from the 2023 state assessment, as the board may recall, revealed that 41 percent of
Bellingham students met standard in math, a 2 percent increase overall from 2022. While a
relatively modest gain, this was a welcome post-pandemic improvement in math scores.
Figure 5 displays the 2024 percent meeting or exceeding standard in math for Bellingham,
Washington state and among the 38 comparable districts in our comparison group.
Bellingham students’ scores held steady in math in year-over-year comparison, slightly
above the state average.

Figure 5. 2024 Math — Percent Meeting Standards in Grades 3-8 and 10

90

80

70

60

50 Bellingham, 41
Washington, 40 1
40 - s— -

30 - 44H SHE

20 H HHH HHH HHHH HHH

Percent of Students Meeting Standard

10 HHUHH a ac L

and about in the middle of the group of comparison districts. For reference, Figure 6
displays the 2023 data, and as is apparent, the proficiency scores for Bellingham students
overall held steady from 2023 to 2024.


Figure 6. 2023 Math — Percent Meeting Standards in Grades 3-8 and 10

100

90

8&0

70

60

=o . Bellingham, 41
Washington, 39 \
40 ——4
30
20
10
of?e.eoe,ee ee eeae sw eweanaes eee eee ee eee ea eee‘ eee ease ae
x 3 S

As we did with ELA above, we are also including the graph comparing our students’ scores
on “foundational” grade level knowledge for 2024 in math. Figure 7 displays a comparison
bar chart of the percent of students meeting or “approaching” math standards in Grades 3-
8 and 10. This chart includes the “approaching standard” portion of students who scored
a level 2 on the state assessment; this portion is stacked on top of the percentage meeting
or exceeding standard for each district included in the chart. When this group is added to
those meeting standard, this totals 62 percent of all Bellingham test takers.

Percent of Students Meeting Standard
]
|
os

Figure 7. 2024 Math - Foundational Grade Level Knowledge and Above in Grades 3-8, 10

100
90
80 Bellingham, 62
70 Washington, 63 | |

. ] =
‘ |

‘,
pa

60 :
50 | t
40 | Ft
30 :
20 :
OF HH AHHH HHHHHAARA HOA HHHOOHHHHHaAHRAHHae
ft)

Percent of Students Meeting or Approaching Standard



The graphics in Figure 8 display trends in math assessment scores for students in Grades
3-5 (far left), Grades 6-8 (middle) and Grade 10 (far right) from Bellingham, Washington
state and the three “high bar” comparable districts noted earlier. In Grades 3-5, all
districts in this group experienced a slight drop in 2024 scores in year-over-year
comparisons with those from 2023.

Figure 8. Math — High Bar Comparison Trends in Grades 3-8 and 10

All Students in Grades 3-5 All Students in Grades 6-8 All Students in Grade 10
100 100 100

co
oS

co

i=)

80

71
63 63 61
56
60 ts 52
47 47 a5 44
ai
36
0 0
ll | | l l | | l | |

0 0 | 0 | lI

Bellingham Bellevue Olympia Shoreline State

a
=)

+
°
£
aa

Percent Meeting Standard

nm
i=)
Ny
i=]
me
i=)

Bellingham Bellevue Olympia Shoreline State Bellingham Bellevue Olympia Shoreline State
m 2022 m 2023 mw 2024 mw 2022 mw 2023 m 2024 m 2022 m 2023 m 2024

The percentage of Bellingham students meeting standard in math Grades 6-8 improved
slightly to 45 percent meeting standard. Scores for this grade band in Olympia and
Shoreline also improved slightly, with Bellevue showing a slight decrease to 63 percent
meeting standard. Grade 10 percent of Bellingham students meeting standard decreased
slightly in 2024, to 31 percent, while scores in Olympia, Bellevue and Shoreline percent
meeting standard in mathin Grade 10 improved slightly.

C. Science Proficiency Comparisons

Figure 9 shows the percentage of students meeting standard in science in Grades 5 and 8;
53 percent of Bellingham students in Grades 5 and 8 met or exceeded the science
standards in 2024. Bellingham students’ scores were positioned above the state, and
about on par with scores from 2023 (Figure 10).


Figure 9. 2024 Science-Percent Meeting Standards in Grades 5 and 8
100

90

80

70

60 Bellingham, 53

50 MaaiinigtonnAs _ _ ,

40

30

20

10

0 to en ~ 1 SEER EERE ——-
Te FS. s : ; 2

s

Percent of Students Meeting Standard

Ro é £ Pe OBS £ PP AOL ESE EEE o & @
SS ESS EEES ES ES PLES SE ESE EEEC SEES PEESS ES EE SS
8 So VISES ES EL FESS ISS F EFSEES ESS "ESF

- ° és af e # ¢&é os FS LFV LAYS $F

2 ao & ¥
s 6 Fe &

Students’ proficiency scores in science continue to position us above the middle of this
group of 38 comparable districts.

Figure 10. 2023 Science-Percent Meeting Standards in Grades 5 and 8

100

90

80

70

60 Bellingham, 53 oe r
50 Washington, 46 . a

40 L
30 L
20 +5 :
wo HHH HHH HHHH HHH HHH HHHHHHHH HHH HHH HHH HHH
0 Tt a a SS TT LS

Percent of Students Meeting Standard

SEES CL IE Pee esss?e ENE SEE SES ES 5

ROLES OSL ES SESE ELSES § SEEEEEEE FE ~ESEESEE SE

¥ Ss oe SS seg tes gee LES FELT SHS -
¢ vs & =

Students’ scores in science on “foundational” grade level knowledge (as now being
reported by the state) for 2024 in math are included as Figure 11. This chart includes the
“approaching standard” portion of students who scored a level 2 on the state assessment;
this portion is stacked on top of the percentage meeting or exceeding standard for each
district included in the chart. When this group is added to those meeting standard, this
totals 69 percent of all Bellingham test takers.


Figure 11. 2024 Science—Foundational Grade Level Knowledge and Above in Grades 5 and 8
100

90

80 : Bellingham, 69 ——T} 1]
Washington, 67 \

70 L

60
50
40
30
20 +
10
eee

Percent of Students Meeting or Approaching Standard

AF 22 2 gk 2 & De £ x Oo 2g & 2 Qk & 2 os Oo e &
S SPSS SEES EF ES STE ESS ESE EE ECE SEE EE EES ES EFES
¥ SEVERE CTF ES EFS TTIF EES SE SSE SSLES (ESF

ge Fs wey é SSP PES FF LES LOL & &
a aaa oe # ge Ws “F Rs 2
& cS & 2 ¢ 3
& €

High bar district comparison trends (Figure 12) revealed an increase for Bellingham’s fifth
grade students in science, while scores in Bellevue and Olympia increased slightly and
Shoreline scores decreased slightly. In eighth grade, the percentage of Bellingham
students meeting standard in science dropped slightly to 50 percent for 2024; Grade 8
science scores in Olympia and Bellevue also dropped slightly while those in Shoreline
increased more significantly.

Figure 12. Science — High Bar Comparison Trends in Grades 5 and 8

All Students in Grade 5 All Students in Grade 8

100 100
ze 30 74 80
3 68 és
5 61 62 37
© 60 af 55 60
= 50
Pod
& 40
= 40 40
r=
i=
G
2
a 20 20 |

0 0
Bellingham Bellevue Olympia Shoreline State Bellingham Bellevue Olympia Shoreline State
m@ 2022 @ 2023 m 2024 mw 2022 @ 2023 m 2024

In summary, Bellingham student proficiency rates remained relatively steady in year-over-
year comparisons to the 2023 data. Bright spots where we saw some growth in proficiency
rates included Grade 10 ELA, middle school math and elementary (Grade 5) science.
Bellingham students’ proficiency rates in all three subject areas tested positioned us
slightly above the state averages. The inclusion of “foundational” knowledge data as
reported by the state this year suggests that approximately 20 percent of students in each
grade level and subject area are scoring just below the proficiency level.

10


Bellingham and Comparable Districts Student Growth Percentile Comparisons

In addition to reporting on proficiency levels, we report on student growth measures
compared to other districts. Student growth measures show how a given population of
students grew compared with the expected growth overall from the state. The median
state growth score for the entire population of students in the state sits precisely at the 50"
percentile; this represents the overall midpoint of growth scores across all districts in
Washington. So, when we compare our students’ growth, percentile scores above the 50"
percentile would suggest our students are doing better growth-wise than the state; scores
below the 50" percentile, not as well as the state in growth. In addition, we compare these
growth percentile scores to our group of 38 comparable district peers.

A. English Language Arts Growth Percentile Comparisons

Figure 13 arrays the group of 38 comparable districts on a scatterplot showing growth
versus percent meeting standard in ELA. Each district’s dot represents its relative
placement to the other districts on the 2024 percentage of Grade 4-8 students meeting
standard in ELA (vertical axis) and median student growth percentile (horizontal axis).

Figure 13. ELA — 2024 Percent Meeting Standard by Median Growth Percentile, Grades 4-8

80

70 University Place

Shoreline e

Peninsula @
White River @ e Everett

60 Lake Stevens Steilacoom Hist.

Ridgefield Mead
© Tumwater
Snohomish Olympia 2
West Walley ivek) South Kitsap, Washougal
Central Kitsap Pe centr$fValley
Enumcla Yelm

50 Arlington —@North Kitsap-) © Stanwood-Camano

___M ;
Port Angeles —g Chehalis enree Giyndengy Bellingham
North Thurston Ellensburg
Cheney-@ @\ Battle Ground

5 Sedro-Woolley@ Ferndale? Washington

Percent Meeting Standard

Marysville
Selah-@® " e

30
Omak-@
20

35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Median of Student Growth Percentile

Bellingham student growth in Grades 4-8 is above the median, and the percentage meeting
standard at approximately 53 percent, which is slightly higher than 2023. Figure 14 shows
the districts in the group of 38 arrayed by student growth percentile, which provides a
different way to see how our district compares to others in the group.

11


Figure 14. ELA-— 2024 Median Student Growth Percentile in Grades 4-8

100

90

oo
So

70

60
Washington, 50 ne ae am, 32

Median Student Growth Percentile

_

od hh io) tf in
So S S&S om] So So
a
eS
To | mmmmnmmmmas
>
| ee
- EEE

xe ed 2 A oo s res eee & Pose > 8 & B ye
SS ES ESP SSE EEE s 2 oy $ Pose £e¥ ogy & PS ESSE eg 7
ee EEE LEE SEE EE ESS ELE S & SS EE SESERS “ees
a SS x OF ok eee s fo) + ca = <
re Te € és 2 FF Fw = @ eo re < a P es
F ¢ os pied # ge FF ggrr* = £ NS ¢
g £ - - x o
GS Le £ K P v & es
3 €
&
-

As is evident from this second chart, Bellingham’s average student growth percentile in
ELA positioned our district in the top third of the comparable group of 38.

We also examined 2024 growth in ELA for different student subgroups internal to
Bellingham (Figure 15). Student subgroups include non-low income, students without
disabilities, all students, Hispanic/Latinx, low income, student with disabilities and
multilingual learners. The groups are ranked by percentage into categories of low growth,
typical growth and high growth. This allows some internal comparisons and highlights
groups where additional support or emphasis may be needed to ensure typical or better
growth is occurring. For example, 63 percent of students with identified disabilities
experienced typical or high growth, compared with 71 percent of students without
identified disabilities. The numbers in parentheses show the change in each category for
each group compared with 2023 data. Multilingual learners showed an overall 7 percent
increase in the percentage of that population achieving high growth. In fact, we were
pleased to see that the percent of Hispanic/Latinx students, students identified as low
income, student identified with disabilities, as well as multilingual students experiencing
high growth in ELA all increased, and the percent of these populations experiencing low
growth decreased in year-over-year comparisons.

12


Figure 15. Bellingham SD 2024 ELA Growth by Student Group

alow Growth sTypicalGrowth sm High Growth
Percent of Population (+/- change from 2023)

Students without
Hispanic/

Students with

Disabilities ae) 3B (HI) oe)
Multilingual

B. Math Growth Percentile Comparisons

We also examined growth percentiles in math. Figure 16 displays the 38 comparable
districts on a scatterplot. As with the ELA scatterplot above, each district’s dot represents
its relative placement to the other districts in 2024 percentage of Grade 4-8 students
meeting standard in math (vertical axis) and median student growth percentile (horizontal
axis). We were pleased to see Bellingham student growth in Grades 4-8 was the highest
among this group of comparable districts.

Figure 16. Math Scatterplot 2024 Growth by Percent Meeting Standard, Grades 4-8

70
60
Shoreline@ oe
Sumner-Bonney Lake. University Place
Peninsula-®
= White River ot Everett
o 50 Ridgefield
ze Mead-@ 7 Olympia
oO Snohomish “Central Valley e0o
A Arli Tumwater North Kitsap Enumclaw West Valley (Yak)
rlington

oo stony South itsap Yelms44 Harbor” Washougal @ Bellingham
£ 40 Steilacoom Hist. ° a
7] , Port Angel ichland
2 Central Kitsap gu OT “Beles ynden-® Monroe
> North Thurston Ellensburg-® / Ferndale @ Stanwood-Camano
Chehalis“ r) z Battle Ground
c Cheney” Washington @
v 30 Selah-®
i
o
a Marysville-®

20

Omak-@
10
35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Median of Student Growth Percentile

13


Figure 17 shows the districts in the group of 38 arrayed by student growth percentile, which
shows Bellingham students’ growth percentile rank at the high end of this spectrum of 38
comparable districts.

Figure 17. Math —- 2024 Median Student Growth Percentile in Grades 4-8
100

90

80

70

60 Bellingham, 57

Washington, 50
Soe ¥ vg ¥¢

Median Student Growth Percentile

& 2
ee

é oS oF ef ES)
r 3 FEL E SES ES FE SE EE SEE
f af £ oF = g < Ve OOS SL FS LS om © SE x a
SES SS OSE “SESTEEFEEEE SPEEE° VEE ETP TFSI SSE
ef # oS SPF LTS FO al £ og
2 g & e ¥F

We also examined 2024 growth in math for different student subgroups internal to
Bellingham (Figure 18). Sixty-eight percent of students with identified disabilities
experienced typical or high growth, which was higher than in 2023, compared with 75
percent of students without identified disabilities who scored in the high growth category.
The numbers in parentheses show the change in each category for each group compared
with 2023 data. Multilingual learners showed an overall 5 percent increase in the
percentage of that population achieving high growth. In fact, the percent of Hispanic/Latinx
students, students identified as low income, student identified with disabilities, as well as
multilingual students experiencing high growth in math allincreased, and the percent of
these populations experiencing low growth decreased in year-over-year comparisons.
Seeing our students hitting higher growth marks this year provides some evidence to
expect that over time our proficiency scores will also rise.

14


Figure 18. Bellingham SD Math Growth by Student Group

as LowGrowth sTypicalGrowth m# HighGrowth
Percent of Population (+/- change from 2023)

Disabilities
Low-Income 30 (-2) 3c) 36 (+1)
Latinx See)
Students with
Disabilities 32 (-3) atta) 37 (+4)
Learners aa she)
With the strong math growth numbers we observed in the 2024 data, we were curious to
dig a little deeper to try to understand what drove the improvements in student group

percentiles, particularly in math, to a higher level. Figure 19 shows the school and grade
level specific median math growth for 2024.

Figure 19. Bellingham SD 2024 Math Growth by School/Grade Level

Median SGP by Grade 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th All Grades
Alderwood 49.5 32 45
Birchwood 34 40.5 39
Carl Cozier 53 S55 44
Columbia 44 56.5 49
Cordata 46 65 52.5
Geneva 63 46 54.5
Happy Valley 515 42 47
Lowell 59.5 | 73 63
Northern Heights :
Parkview

Roosevelt

Silver Beach

Sunnyland

Wade King

Fairhaven

Kulshan

Shuksan

Whatcom

District Total



Darker green color in the squares indicates higher growth scores. Any score above the 50"
percentile indicates growth above the state expected average. The data suggest that
middle school growth numbers are helping to drive the shift in our overall growth data. All
but two grade level school groups scored above the 50" percentile in our middle schools in
2024, with some groups scoring in the low-to-mid 70" percentile range. Keep in mind that
the 2024 middle schoolers were Grade 2, 3 and 4 in the year 2020, so were arguably some
of the most impacted in terms of the learning loss due to the pandemic. That we see
growth happening for those students in the middle years seems a very positive thing and
likely is a function of the fact that they had some catching up to do.

In the elementary data, we observed higher growth among students in some of our higher
income schools — Lowell, Wade King, Geneva, etc. It is not unusual to observe higher
growth in higher income schools, as we know income levels and test scores tend to trend
together. One group that caught our attention to highlight is the fifth grade group from
Cordata Elementary, our demographically lowest income school, and the elementary with
our highest multilingual population. The board will recall that in our final Ends report last
year, we highlighted the teaching of the Cordata team, including Ruwani Brohier, fifth grade
teacher at Cordata, and last year’s Teacher of the Year Promise Award recipient. In that
report, we wrote:

Cordata’s multilingual teachers are also engaged in co-planning and co-teaching with
general education teachers so that curriculum, instruction and assessment approaches
are responsive to our multilingual learners. Finally, the school has also been strategic
about matching multilingual staff with multilingual students. This means that throughout
their day students are frequently able to communicate with teachers in their home
language as they are learning. Within the classroom strategic partnering with language
peers is a common practice which has led to greater inclusivity, belonging, engagernent
and joy. Below is a photo of multilingual specialist Sarah Ferris and fifth grade teacher,
Ruwani Brohier.

16


Ruwani Brohier... attended the six-day Guided Language Acquisition Instruction (GLAD)
training offered in November 2023. Sarah Ferris and instructional coach Michelle Hornof
joined Ruwani for side-by-side coaching and co-planning. Through ongoing collaboration
integrating and creating GLAD strategies into units of study this year positive effects in
classroom culture and student engagement were observed. '

While it is difficult to prove a causal link, we assert that the Cordata teaching team’s
influence can be seen in the growth scores for Cordata for 2024, reinforcing how great
teaching matters.

In summary, overall student growth in ELA remained steady compared to 2023. Math
growth improved overall, to a point where our student growth scores were the highest of all
comparable districts we use in this analysis. Middle schoolimprovements in growth were
highlighted as important in driving this sharp increase. Finally, a higher percentage of
students who are low income, Hispanic/Latinx, multilingual or who are identified as having
a disability experienced higher growth this year compared to 2023, and this was true in
both ELA and Math.

Closing Achievement Gaps

We now turn to an examination of proficiency gaps comparing various student subgroup
trends within our district and with the state. We delve into differences in student
performance on the standardized test in comparisons by race, socio-economic status and
disability status. Subgroups included in this part of the analysis include a comparison
between students who are low income and those who are non-low income,
Hispanic/Latinx students, White students and students with disabilities and those without
disabilities.

A. Gap Analysis: Low income vs. Non-low income

First, we compare trends between students from low income households as compared to
their cohorts from non-low income households. Income determinations are made based
on free and reduced lunch eligibility. The charts included below show gap trends in ELA
and math proficiency between students from non-low income and low income households
at Grades 3-5 (Figure 20), Grades 6-8 (Figure 21) and Grade 10 (Figure 22). Included for
comparison with each picture is the overall change in the gaps at the state level within
those grade bands and content areas.

In ELA for Grades 3-5 (top graphs, Figure 20), the proficiency levels for low income and
non-low income groups in Bellingham remained flat compared with 2023; the gap
remained constant in year-over-year comparisons. Across the state this gap narrowed very
slightly between 2023 and 2024. The percentile gap in Bellingham Grade 3-5 students’
math scores between low income and non-low income decreased slightly from 2023 to
2024, mainly due to a decrease of one percent in scores of non-low income students. In

1 As reported in last spring’s Ends 1, 2 & 3 report, dated May 8, 2024, pages 12-13.

17


science, Grade 5 proficiency increased for both low income and non-low income groups in
Grades 3-5, but the gap between groups got larger compared with scores from 2023.

Figure 20. Proficiency Gap Trends—Low vs. Non-low Income, Gr 3-5

Grades 3-5 ELA - Bellingham Public Schools Grades 3-5 ELA - Washington State
% F/R Meal Rate -@-Low Income —a-Non-Low Income % F/R Meal Rate -@-Low Income —@—Non-Low Income
100 100
2
3 80 80
3
< 62 66 67 66
& 58 ani a a a
© 60 = as 60
=
=
g 33 34
a 32
= 26 27 27 “0 a _—____4_—__—_——=+
&
G o—_____e—____—__+
= 20 20
a
36 40 43 48 50 50
0 T T 1 0 T T 1
2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024
Grades 3-5 Math - Bellingham Public Schools Grades 3-5 Math - Washington State
%6 F/R Meal —@—Low Income —@—Non-Low Income % F/R Meal —@-Low Income —@-Non-Low Income
190 100
=)
&
z 80 a
& 61 63 63
56
= 60 St aS 60 ———_s——4
= Fe
v
2 40 40 37 30 31
5 20 22 22: ——_—_—
@ 20 — == oe 20
36 40 43 48 50 30
fe) : ; 1 fs) : ; 1
2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024
Grade 5 Science - Bellingham Public Schools Grade 5 Science - Washington State
% F/RMeal —®-Low Income —l-Non-Low Income % F/R Meal —@-Low Income —@-Non-Low Income
100 100

Percent Meeting Standard

2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024

In ELA for Grades 6-8 (top graphs, Figure 21), the proficiency levels for low income
students improved slightly, while decreasing for non-low income students, narrowing the
gap a few points. The percentile gap in Bellingham students’ math scores between low
income and non-low income narrowed slightly, helped by a 3 percent rise in the scores of
middle schoolers identified as from low income households, while both groups improved
slightly in their proficiency levels (middle graphs, Figure 21). In science, Grade 8
proficiency improved 2 percentage points for eighth graders identified as from low income
households (lower graphs, Figure 21), while their non-low income counterparts’ scores

18


dropped a bit. This narrowed the gap in science scores from 37 points in 2023 to 31 points
in 2024.

Figure 21. Proficiency Gap Trends—Low vs. Non-low Income, Gr 6-8

Grades 6-8 ELA - Bellingham Public Schools Grades 6-8 ELA - Washington State
% F/R Meal Rate —@-Low Income -a-Non-Low Income % F/R Meal Rate —@—Low Income ———Non-Low Income
100. YR 100
4
gm 80
iF 63 66 64 64 64 64
—a—
% 6 ua— —— er a—— —_— o
£
Hy 35
= 40 30 34 40 32 32 32
- Sele” =a eee
§
= 20 20
a
36 40 43 Ag 50 50
oO T T 1 0 T T 1
2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024
Grades 6-8 Math - Bellingham Public Schools Grades 6-8 Math - Washington State
% F/R Meal Rate —-—Low Income —@+Non-Low Income ¢ F/R Meal Rate -@-Low Income -a—Non-Low Income
100 100

8
3

8
&
5

Percent Meeting Standard
8 3
} |
3
bo a
, | | |
g Fd

20

36 40 43 43 50 50
o T T 1 0 T T 1
2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024
Grade 8 Science - Bellingham Public Schools Grade 8 Science - Washington State
% F/R Meal Rate —@—Low Income —@-Non-Low Income 95 F/R Meal Rate —@—Low Income —@-Non-Low Income
100 100
z
€ 62 ®8 64
B - —— — a 55 58 55
= al cd
a
2 az
= 40 3k 40
ra i 24 25 25
uo —}—__
Fy 20 20 . ie
36 40 43 43 30 50
it) T T 1 0 T T 1
2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024

In ELA for Grade 10 (top graphs, Figure 22), the proficiency levels for both low income and
non-low income groups in Bellingham increased; however, the gap in Bellingham Grade 10
ELA scores between low income and non-low income also increased from 27 points in
2023 (73 vs. 46) to 30 points in 2024 (77 vs. 47). While this gap widened by three points, it
occurred while both groups’ proficiency rates increased. The gap between these two
groups across the state held steady in year-over-year comparisons. In math (bottom
graphs, Figure 22) the gap between low income and non-low income groups in Bellingham

19


increased from 20 points in 2023 (40 vs. 20) to 26 points in 2024 (41 vs. 15). The state gap
held steady during this same year-over-year period.

Figure 22. Proficiency Gap Trends—Low vs. Non-low Income, Gr 10

Grade 10 ELA - Bellingham Public Schools Grade 10 ELA - Washington State
% F/R Meal Rate —@-Low Income —@-Non-Low Income % F/R Meal Rate —@—Low Income —l-Non-Low Income
100 100
84
> 50 —————— - 75 74 74
oa "1
3
i
= co 52 60
Cr) 46 47 47 45 45
a 40 40
=
2
® 20 20
o
a 36 40 43 4g 50 50
o i -
2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024
Grade 10 Math - Bellingham Public Schools Grade 10 Math - Washington State
% F/R Meal Rate —@Low Income —i—Non-Low Income % F/R Meal Rate —@—Low Income —-—-Non-Low Income

be
i=]
i=]
B
8

8
8

=)
5
=
2
=
i 60 St 60
2 40 41 44 44 44
@ 40 40 —- —— d
=
m= 20
@ 20 ate a a 20 = ue us
= _— —> - —— *
2 36 40 43 4g 50 50

0 0

2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024

In summary, the proficiency gaps between Bellingham students who are low income and
those who are non-low income held relatively steady in ELA and math at Grades 3-5,
decreased in ELA and math at Grades 6-8, increased slightly in science in Grade 5,
decreased in Grade 8 and increased at Grade 10 from 2023 to 2024. State proficiency gaps
remained relatively more constant during this same period.

B. Gap Analysis: Hispanic/Latinx vs. White

Next, we compare trends between groups of students who identify as Hispanic or Latinx
and their cohorts who identify as White. The charts included below show gap trends in ELA
and math proficiency between Hispanic/Latinx students and White students at Grades 3-5
(Figure 23), Grades 6-8 (Figure 24) and Grade 10 (Figure 25). Included for comparison with
each picture is the overall change in the gaps at the state level within those Grade bands
and content areas.

In ELA for Grades 3-5 (top graphs, Figure 23), the proficiency level for Hispanic/Latinx
students in 2024 dropped by 1 percentage point, and held steady for White students,
widening the gap between subgroups compared to 2023. Across the state, this gap
decreased slightly (1 percentage point) due to a slight drop in the proficiency levels of

20


White students in Grades 3-5. The percentile gap between Bellingham’s Hispanic/Latinx
and White students in Grades 3-5 math (middle graph, Figure 23) remained constant
compared with 2023, with both groups’ scores dropping a point. The proficiency gap in
math between these two groups across the state increased by 1 percent in year-over-year
comparison during this same period. Science proficiency rate for Hispanic/Latinx and
White fifth graders improved in Bellingham and across the state. The gap widened by 1
percent between Bellingham’s White and Hispanic/Latinx fifth graders’ scores, even as
both groups’ scores improved overall (bottom graph, Figure 23). Both groups scored higher
across the state, while the gap between groups shrunk by 1 percent.

Figure 23. Proficiency Gap Trends — Hispanic/Latinx vs. White, Gr 3-5

Grades 3-5 ELA - Bellingham Public Schools Grades 3-5 ELA - Washington State
—*—Hispanic/ Latinx —B- White —*—Hispanic/ Latinx —-White
100 100
2
4 a0
J
- 56 57 56
@ 60 53 24 54 60
_—____—_———_a—_—a
é —— ee |
ou
a 40 32 32 32
7 26 25 24 -~—____+___ +
=4
@ >—__—_-—___+
— 20 20
a
it) oO
2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024
Grades 3-5 Math - Bellingham Public Schools Grades 3-5 Math - Washington State
—e-Hispanic/ Latinx B-—White —Hispanic/ Latinx —f-White
100 100
ma]
& 30 80
i —4
=
Ww
60 a5 60 4 53 a4
ou
=s 4 40 36 i] va]
5 1g 18 v7 ° i ———*
2 20 ——<——_——_ 20
io
Qa T T 1 Qo T T 1
2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024
Grade 5 Science - Bellingham Public Schools Grade 5 Science - Washington State
——Hispanic/ Latinx i+ White —*Hispanic/ Latinx —@-White
100 100
5 30 30
= J
66
& 60 ee 59 60 oA
n=
t
36
s 40 vis] v1) ST 40 St Sr
: os + —_
2 20 20
a
it) T T 1 Lt) T T 1
2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024

21


In ELA for Grades 6-8 (top graph, Figure 24), the percentile gap between Hispanic/Latinx
and White students’ scores in Bellingham increased by 1 percent, while the state gap
decreased slightly. In math (middle graph, Figure 24) the gap between Hispanic/Latinx and
White students’ proficiency held steady among Bellingham students tested, while the
scores of both groups increased by 2 percentage points in comparison with 2023. The
statewide gap between groups increased slightly in year-over-year comparisons. The
eighth grade science proficiency gap between these two groups (bottom graph, Figure 24)
decreased locally in Bellingham by five points, buoyed by higher scores in science among
our local Hispanic/Latinx student population. The statewide gap in science dropped due to
a decline in White students’ scores overall.

Figure 24. Proficiency Gap Trends — Hispanic/Latinx vs. White, Gr 6-8

Grades 6-8 ELA - Bellingham Public Schools Grades 6-8 ELA - Washington State
—-Hispanic/ Latinx —i- White —#— Hispanic/ Latinx —i- White
100 100
z
= 80 80
2
3 58 59 38 55 55 54
co 50 i 60
£ i—— @ —_—
‘au
= af 32 23 40 32 34 33
+ ——— —__—_—_+—_______+
3
5 20 20
a
0 T T 1 0 T T 1
2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024
Grades 6-8 Math - Bellingham Public Schools Grades 6-8 Math - Washington State
—@Hispanic/ Latinx f+ White —@—Hispanic/ Latinx —i White
100 100
= 80 80
Gu
cc
a 60 St a3 60
2 4 wo a a
3 40 40 >——_——
= WV 20 = 18 19 19
3 20 —S—_—_na— at 1710 _=— ¥§-— JS
a
a
Lt) 0 +
2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024
Grade 8 Science - Bellingham Public Schools Grade 8 Science - Washington State
—@—Hispanic/ Latinx + White —* Hispanic/ Latinx —i- White
100 100
z 20 oa
oo
2 59 60 60
2 6 + _ a 60 4g §- ————_ 3g
oO
Be a0 = 40
24
= 19 23 22 22
Fi 20 {nt 20 & * +
=
o
a
0 T T 1 o T T
2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024

22


In ELA for Grade 10 (top graph, Figure 25), the percentile gap in Bellingham students’
scores between Hispanic/Latinx and White increased by one point, while proficiency levels
for both subgroups also increased. In math (bottom graph, Figure 25), the proficiency gap
between Hispanic/Latinx and White Grade 10 scores decreased, spurred in part by the fact
that proficiency for Hispanic/Latinx students overall increased two points from 2023 to
2024.

Figure 25. Proficiency Gap Trends — Hispanic/Latinx vs. White, Gr 10

Grade 10 ELA - Bellingham Public Schools Grade 10 ELA - Washington State
—# Hispanic/ Latinx i+ White —@—Hispanic/ Latinx —a- White
100 100
2 79
3” —_ = = oF 67 67
2 —_—_—_s——____—__8
w
‘sp 60 Sh 60 ;
= i 44 cal 45 45
a °
2 i > +
= 40 40
=
wv
£ 20 20
a
i] oO
2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024
Grade 10 Math - Bellingham Public Schools Grade 10 Math - Washington State
—@—Hispanic/ Latinx —i-White —@Hispanic/ Latinx a White
100 100
PB 80 80
oa
ua
i=
oO
= 60 60
ey 45
= 36 37
© as o——_% __ aa 36 36
= = a
4 18
5 20 . 15 v7 20 15 14 14
5 —> ° rs ©
a
0 o
2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024

In summary, analysis of gaps between Hispanic/Latinx and White students’ performance
showed mixed results in year-over-year comparison. Science proficiency rate for
Hispanic/Latinx and White fifth graders improved in Bellingham and across the state. The
eighth grade science proficiency gap between these two groups decreased locally in
Bellingham by five points, due to higher scores in science among our local Hispanic/Latinx
student population. In math, the proficiency gap between Hispanic/Latinx and White
Grade 10 scores decreased, spurred in part by the fact that proficiency for Hispanic/Latinx
students overall increased two points from 2023 to 2024.

C. Gap Analysis: Students with Disabilities vs. Students Without Disabilities

In this next section, we compare trends between groups of students with identified
disabilities with their non-disabled cohort mates. The charts included below show gap
trends in each of the content areas at Grades 3-5 (Figure 26), Grades 6-8 (Figure 27) and
Grade 10 (Figure 28) comparing students with disabilities with their non-disabled peers.

23


Included for comparison with each picture is the overall change in the gaps at the state
level within those Grade bands and content areas.

In ELA for Grades 3-5 (top graph, Figure 26), the 2024 proficiency level for students with
identified disabilities decreased by 4 percent and increased by 2 percent for students
without disabilities to 52 percent, widening the gap between subgroups compared to 2023.
Across the state, this gap decreased slightly year-over-year to 22 percentage points. The
percentile gap between Bellingham’s students with and without identified disabilities in
Grades 3-5 math (middle graph, Figure 26) increased by 3 percent due to a decrease in
proficiency scores among Grade 3-5 students with disabilities. The proficiency gap in math
between these two groups across the state held steady in year-over-year comparison
during this same period, with both groups gaining 1 percentage point in proficiency rates.

Figure 26. Proficiency Gap — Students with Disabilities vs. Without Disabilities, Gr 3-5

Percent Meeting Standard '
s 6 8 8 8

o

5
ts}

Percent Meeting Standard

8s 8 8 8 8

Percent Meeting Standard

a

Grades 3-5 ELA - Bellingham Public Schools

—— Students with Disabilities —-m—-Without Disabilities

Grades 3-5 ELA - Washington State

—@Students with Disabilities -=—Without Disabilities

5+ 52 54
a =— a
25 5

21

2022 2023

Grades 3-5 Math - Bellingham Public Schools

Students with Disabilities —-i-— Without Disabilities

2022 2023

Grades 3-5 Math - Washington State
—¢—Students with Disabilities —a—Without Disabilities

80
60 St $2
49
44 cal 47 SE
40
21 20 WV 20 21 22
Oe 20 -—__—_ —_ * +

2023

Grade 5 Science - Bellingham Public Schools

—@—Students with Disabilities —@—Without Disabilities

2023 2024

Grade 5 Science - Washington State
Students with Disabilities -——- Without Disabilities

62
58 59 ae
34
34
28
——*__” 23 23 27

2022

24

2022 2023 2024


The science proficiency gap between Bellingham fifth graders with and without disabilities
held steady, even as both groups showed a three point improvement in scores during this
time.

In ELA for Grades 6-8 (top graph, Figure 27), the percentile gap between scores of students
with and without disabilities in Bellingham narrowed by 4 percent, with the state gap
decreasing slightly. In math (middle graph, Figure 27) the proficiency gap for students with
and without disabilities decreased among Bellingham students tested also narrowed by 2
percent, while the statewide gap between groups widened slightly in year-over-year
comparisons. The eighth grade science proficiency gap between these two groups (bottom
graph, Figure 27) also narrowed by six points in Bellingham and by two points statewide.

Figure 27. Proficiency Gap — Students with Disabilities vs. Without Disabilities, Gr 6-8

Grades 6-8 ELA - Bellingham Public Schools Grades 6-8 ELA - Washington State
Students with Disabilities -—l-Without Disabilities —— Students with Disabilities -—- Without Disabilities
100 100
ua
& 80 80
5 60
Fe 58 58
og 60 —o-— o 60 54 54 53
= am [= o ao
= 40 40
=
= 20 14 a y 20 13 14 14
ra ¢ +> md — —¢ ad
o T T 1 Qo T T 1
2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024
Grades 6-8 Math - Bellingham Public Schools Grades 6-8 Math - Washington State
—@—Students with Disabilities -a-Without Disabilities Students with Disabilities -B-Without Disabilities
100 100
m=
ma 80 80
vu
=
pe
2° ._——__= “
% 38 39 40
= 40 40 dt
5 15
20 12 20
5 + g 10 te
= ¢—$£___—_——___+—___—__+
o T T 1 oO T T 1
2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024
Grade 8 Science - Bellingham Public Schools Grade 8 Science - Washington State
—#—Students with Disabilities -g—Without Disabilities —-— Students with Disabilities -—a—Without Disabilities
100 100
m=
5 20 80
<<
s 60
‘> 60 —— o ——* 60
F 44 46 44
a
s 40 40 a a
[= 19
5 39 = #6 20 42 14. 14
a en . ~+—_ +
oO T T 1 oO T T 1
2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024

25


In ELA for Grade 10 (top graph, Figure 28), the percentile gap between Bellingham students
with and without disabilities increased by 2 percentage points, even as both groups’
proficiency rates improved slightly. In math (bottom graph, Figure 28), the proficiency gap
between Bellingham’s Grade 10 with and without disabilities widened by 2 percent overall,
with proficiency rates overall decreasing for both groups in year-over-year comparison.
State comparisons showed a slight decrease in the gap in ELA and no change in math
comparing 2023 and 2024.

Figure 28. Proficiency Gap- Students with Disabilities vs. Without Disabilities, Gr 10

Grade 10 ELA - Bellingham Public Schools Grade 10 ELA - Washington State

—Students with Disabilities -—I- Without Disabilities —Students with Disabilities —B- Without Disabilities
100

a2 gs 8
A
2 8
g
:
ag

&
&

Percent Meeting Standard

5
5
bi
rt

[=]
Q

2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024
Grade 10 Math - Bellingham Public Schools Grade 10 Math - Washington State
—- Students with Disabilities -a—Without Disabilities —+ Students with Disabilities —-@-Without Disabilities
100 100
= J
= 80 80
ua
=<
o
A 60 60
z 43
2 40 ee ee 40 34 3a 33
a a— ———__a-_____—___5)
&
Toy _
s B tt 6 20 a z
¢———_—___-+——____
aad o— + °
o i)
2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024

In summary, gaps in proficiency levels largely continue to persist between students with
identified disabilities and non-disabled peers. Depending on level and content area,
results are mixed. In ELA and math for Grades 3-5 and Grade 10 the gap between
subgroups widened compared to 2023. By contrast, the gaps between groups narrowed in
ELA and math among our local middle school students in year-over-year comparison. The
eighth grade science proficiency gap between these two groups also narrowed by six
points in Bellingham and by two points statewide.

D. Gap Analysis: Multilingual vs. Non-multilingual Students

In this next section, we compare trends between groups of students identified as
multilingual learners with cohorts not identified multilingual. The charts included below
show gap trends in ELA and math proficiency between multilingual students and non-
multilingual students in Grades 3-5 (Figure 29), Grades 6-8 (Figure 30) and Grade 10 (Figure

26


31). Included for comparison with each picture is the overall change in the gaps at the
state level within those grade bands and content areas.

In ELA for Grades 3-5 (top graph, Figure 29), the 2024 proficiency gap for students
identified multilingual compared to non-multilingual students narrowed by 4 percent
compared to 2023. Across the state, this gap also decreased slightly again. The percentile
gap between Bellingham’s multilingual students and those who are non-multilingual in
Grades 3-5 math (middle graph, Figure 29) by contract widened by 2 percent in year-over-
year comparison. The science proficiency gap between Bellingham fifth graders who are
multilingual and those who are non-multilingual (bottom graph, Figure 29) held steady
during this time, while both group’s proficiency scores continued to improve over the past
two years.

27


Figure 29. Proficiency Gap-Multilingual vs. Non-multilingual students, Gr 3-5

Grades 3-5 ELA - Bellingham Public Schools Grades 3-5 ELA - Washington State
—* Multilingual Learner —8-—Not MLL —— Multilingual Learner ——Not MLL
100 100
ua
80 30
=]
fa
% 60 50 54 54 60 a 35 56
a——______a_——_
s a ~a—— a
uv
vu
= 40
= 19 21
& 20 7 42 20 i4 —_—+
e°) gp ——$—
a T T 1 Qo T T 1
2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024
Grades 3-5 Math - Bellingham Public Schools Grades 3-5 Math - Washington State
Multilingual Learner a+ Not MLL — Multilingual Learner i Not MLL
100 100
z
5 # 80
fa
a
og 60 60 a5 ot 32
= 43 45 a8 _—_——_a"
a —_—___——_4
= 0 40
5 22 23
o 15
£ 20 +0 +o 20 ——
a 5 A
Q T T 1 Oo T T 1
2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024
Grade 5 Science - Bellingham Public Schools Grade 5 Science - Washington State
—® Multilingual Learner =G—Not MLL —@Multilingual Learner —i- Not MLL
100 100
w 80 80
oc
3 - a 62 ss 57 62
& 60 oe 60 a
bo
=
@ 40 40
=
= i
p=} 2 a
o ———*+—_ ”*
a
0 T T 1 oO T T 1
2022 2023. 2024 2022 2023 2024

In ELA for Grades 6-8 (top graph, Figure 30), the percentile gap between scores of
multilingual students and non-multilingual students in Bellingham narrowed by 2 percent,
as the state gap also narrowed slightly. In math (middle graph, Figure 30) the proficiency
gap between multilingual and non-multilingual narrowed by 1 percent among Bellingham
students tested, with both groups realizing gains in proficiency. The eighth grade science
proficiency gap between these two groups (bottom graph, Figure 30) similarly narrowed by
5 percent in Bellingham, and by 3 percent statewide.

28


Figure 30. Proficiency Gap-— Multilingual vs. Non-multilingual students, Gr 6-8

Grades 6-8 ELA - Bellingham Public Schools

Grades 6-8 ELA - Washington State

—@— Multilingual Learner —i- Not MLL —@—Multilingual Learner —@-Not MLL
100 100
=)
ss 80 80
au
&
Pay 60 53 35 535 60 52 53 53
= a =— —_—_ ia
E
= 4 40
=
2 20 20
2 7 6 8 7 B 5
+ —~o— + - -— od
0 T T 1 tt) T T 1
2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024

Grades 6-8 Math - Bellingham Public Schools Grades 6-8 Math - Washington State

—* Multilingual Learner i Not MLL —* Multilingual Learner —a-Not MLL

Percent Meeting Standard

2024

Grade 8 Science - Bellingham Public Schools Grade 8 Science - Washington State

—-— Multilingual Learner —i—Not MLL — Multilingual Learner —H- Not MLL
100 100
zB 80 a
to
=
& 60 53 ae a4 60
bp o = —a 43 45 44
bs i — i
& ao 40
=
2
@ 20 20
oO FJ
5 2 5 5 6
iY) T T 1 o T T 1
2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024

In ELA for Grade 10 (top graph, Figure 31), the percentile gap between Bellingham students
with and without disabilities narrowed by 2 percentage points as both multilingual and
non-multilingual Bellingham students’ proficiency levels increased in year-over-year
comparison. In math (bottom graph, Figure 31), the proficiency gap between Bellingham’s
multilingual and non-multilingual Grade 10 held steady overall from 2023 to 2024, but
proficiency rates for each group dropped by 2 percent. State comparisons showed the
gaps in ELA and in math held steady in year-over-year comparison.

29


Figure 31. Proficiency Gap- Multilingual vs. Non-multilingual students, Gr 10

Grade 10 ELA - Bellingham Public Schools Grade 10 ELA - Washington State
—— Multilingual Learner i Not MLL —— Multilingual Learner —@-Not MLL
100 100
el so 76 80
E :
2 66 65 67 65 65
% B
= a— a
2 60 60
wu
= 40 40
EF > 16
2 20 , 44 20 i4 1B if
& - oe a
ft) i)
2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024
Grade 10 Math - Bellingham Public Schools Grade 10 Math - Washington State
—@— Multilingual Learner =@—Not MLL —* Multilingual Learner —a-—Not MLL
100 100
z
5 # 80
i“
pes
> 60 60
Cc
2 41
2 a a
g
5 20 20
a. a 2 5 4 4 5
> + * ® e —
i) oO
2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024

In summary, we observed the proficiency gaps between students identified multilingual
compared to non-multilingual students decreasing or holding steady depending on subject
area and grade level band. In ELA for Grades 3-5 the gap narrowed by 4 percent compared
to 2023; in Grades 3-5 math, by contrast, the gap widened by 2 percent in year-over-year
comparison. The fifth grade science gap held steady during this time, while both group’s
proficiency scores continued to improve over the past two years. Grades 6-8 gaps
narrowed between groups in all subject areas, including a decrease of 5 percent eighth
grade science. In ELA, the Grade 10 gap between Bellingham multilingual and non-
multilingual students narrowed by 2 percentage points as both groups’ proficiency levels
increased while math held steady in year-over-year comparison.

Concluding Statement

Proficiency rates in SBA scores for Bellingham students mostly held at or near 2023 levels
in this year’s data. Middle school proficiency rates improved in most content areas.
Proficiency gaps are still prevalent in many grade bands and content areas as was noted in
various subgroup comparisons. The inclusion of “foundational” knowledge data as
reported by the state this year suggests that approximately 20 percent of students in each
grade level and subject area are scoring just below the proficiency level and can be
understood as on the cusp of meeting standard. Overall student growth in ELA remained
steady compared to 2023, while math growth improved overall. A higher percentage of
students who are low income, Hispanic/Latinx, multilingual or who are identified as having

30


a disability experienced higher growth this year compared to 2023, and this was true in
both ELA and math. Of all our proficiency and growth indicators reported in this report, this
provides perhaps the strongest indicator of progress moving forward for an eventual return
to pre-pandemic levels. Below is a summary of some of the trends we saw, starting with
some challenges and concluding with some areas of comparative strength.

Noted challenges:

Proficiency rates remained relatively flat in many year-over-year comparisons.
Proficiency gaps between Bellingham students who are low income and those who
are non-low income held relatively steady in ELA and math at Grades 3-5, increased
slightly in science in Grade 5 and in ELA and math in Grade 10 from 2023 to 2024.
Gaps in proficiency levels largely continue to persist between students with
identified disabilities and non-disabled peers. In ELA and math for Grades 3-5 and
Grade 10 the gap between subgroups widened compared to 2023.

In Grades 3-5 math, the gap between students identified multilingual compared to
non-multilingual students widened by 2 percent in year-over-year comparison.

Trending positive:

Bellingham student proficiency rates remained relatively steady in year-over-year
comparisons to the 2023 data. Overall student growth in ELA remained steady
compared to 2023, while math growth improved in some areas.

Bright spots where we saw some growth in proficiency rates included Grade 10 ELA,
Grade 6-8 math and elementary (Grade 5) science.

Bellingham students’ proficiency rates in all three subject areas tested positioned
us slightly above the state averages across the board.

A higher percentage of students who are low income, Hispanic/Latinx, multilingual
or who are identified as having a disability experienced higher growth this year
compared to 2023, and this was true in both ELA and math.

Proficiency gaps between students who are low income and those who are non-low
income decreased in Grade 6-8 ELA and math, and also in science at Grade 8.
Science proficiency rate for Hispanic/Latinx and White fifth graders improved in
Bellingham and across the state.

The eighth grade science proficiency gap between these Hispanic/Latinx and White
students decreased locally in Bellingham by five points, buoyed by higher scores in
science among our local Hispanic/Latinx student population.

Proficiency gap between Hispanic/Latinx and White Grade 10 scores in math
decreased, spurred in part by the fact that proficiency for Hispanic/Latinx students
overall increased two points from 2023 to 2024.

Gaps between students with disabilities and non-disabled peers narrowed in ELA
and math among our local middle school students in year-over-year comparison.
The eighth grade science proficiency gap between these two groups also narrowed
by six points in our district.

31


e In ELA proficiency gaps between students identified multilingual compared to non-
multilingual students for Grades 3-5 the gap narrowed by 4 percentage points
compared to 2023.

e Grades 6-8 gaps between students identified multilingual compared to non-
multilingual students narrowed between groups in all subject areas, including a
decrease of 5 percent eighth grade science.

e InELA, the Grade 10 gap between Bellingham multilingual and non-multilingual
students narrowed by 2 percentage points as both groups’ proficiency levels
increased.

We offer this Ends 2.1 Part 1 monitoring report, in combination with the remaining parts of
the report that will follow, as evidence of a reasonable interpretation of Ends 2.1 that aligns
with our vision, mission and outcomes, and is supported by data that demonstrates
progress toward achievement of these Ends. Further, we hope this report serves as a
useful tool in support of the board’s ability to regularly review our ends to ensure they
remain relevant and inspire meaningful work throughout the organization and community.

32