DekalbGA Board Presentation.v4

AID 1864632 · View on Simbli

Agenda Item

b. Level One Data Return on Investment Presentation ~ Updated 9.8.2025

Summary: Presented by: Ms. Charlotte May, Level One Data
Ms. Randi Narcomey, Level One Data
Dekalb County Schools
    Level Data ROI & Impact Summary
Level Data ROI Impact Summary
Contents

                            01   Purpose


                            02   Methodology


                            04   Keys Findings


                            04   Recommendations


                            05   What’s Next


                                                   2
Purpose


 Why We Did This:                                Questions We Answered:

• Evaluate effectiveness of our tools          • Return on Investment (ROI): Are tools being
                                                 used as intended and worth the cost?
• To understand if they’re improving student
  learning and achievement                     • Return on Instruction: Are students growing
                                                 more when they consistently engage with
• Ensure strategic use of resources by           tools?
  connecting cost, usage, and impact
                                               • Return on Impact: Are more students
                                                 meeting or exceeding their projected
                                                 growth?


                                                                                               3
Methodology



 Return on Investment                          Return on Instruction                            Return on Impact
   We compared student                           We compared average                              We compared the
   usage of digital tools to                       NWEA RIT increase                            percentage of engaged
 district spending, based on                    between engaged users                             users vs. non-users
     whether usage met                         and non-users of each tool.                       meeting NWEA MAP
   vendor-recommended                                                                             projected growth.
            levels.




    We evaluated the 23.24 school year data for the following programs: iStation, iReady, IXL, Accelerated Reader, BrainPOP,
    Study Island, ALEKS, Achieve 3000, Into Math, Into Science, STEMScopes, Progress Learning, DeltaMath, Prodigy,
    CengageNOW, and Waggle. This presentation includes finding from platforms with the most valuable insights from this list.
                                                                                                                                4
Measuring Utilization

Student usage is measured by looking at whether students used a platform with fidelity, meaning they
engaged consistently at the level the vendor recommends to achieve growth.

   • For example, iReady recommends students use the platform 45 minutes per week. Only students who meet
     that threshold are counted as “engaged users”.


                                       Vendor Recommended Usage

                                   iReady          45 minutes per week

                                   iStation        40 minutes per week

                                  Into Math        2 activities per week

                              Accelerated Reader   2 activities per week

                                     IXL           60 Questions per week

                                                                                                            5
Key Findings – Return on Investment
          Out of $3.96M, Level Data helped identify $3.4M in resources that can be better aligned to our students'
                                                  needs moving forward.

                                                                    Platform Cost vs Utilization
                                             $800,000                                                                      100%
                                             $700,000                                                                      90%
                                                                                                                           80%
                                             $600,000
                                                                                                                           70%
                                             $500,000                                                                      60%
                                             $400,000                                                                      50%
                                             $300,000                                                                      40%
                                                                                                                           30%
                                             $200,000
                                                                                                                           20%
                                             $100,000                                                                      10%
                                                   $-                                                                      0%




                                                                                                   *Only students who consistently
                                                                                                   met usage expectations were
                                                                            Cost     Utlization    counted as engaged users.



•   Math: $1.45M available to be reevaluated; <20% of students fully optimized most programs.
•   ELA: $1.29M available to be reevaluated; <30% of students fully optimized most programs.
•   Science: $625K available to be reevaluated; <6% of students fully optimized most programs.
•   Even free tools showed low engagement—indicating implementation, not cost, is the barrier.

                                This highlights a major opportunity to improve implementation.
                                                                                                                                     6
Key Findings – Return on Instruction
              All engaged user groups met or exceeded their grade-band average growth expectations—demonstrating a clear
                                                   return on instructional investment.




 Note: The expected RIT increase declines as grade levels go up. Each grade has its own benchmark, so we use an average for each grade-level band.

Students who engage with digital programs consistently outperform non-engaged peers by approximately 0.8 to 3.7 RIT points.
• The largest engagement advantage was seen in K–2 Math with Engaged iReady students increasing ~3.7 more points.
• Even small gains matter: In Grades 3–5, engagement still resulted in up to a 1.3-point increase over non-engaged students
   in both Math and ELA.
                                                                                                                                                     7
Key Findings – Return on Impact
          When tools are used consistently, they work. This reinforces the importance of usage fidelity.




•   Math Programs: Engaged students outperformed non-engaged peers by 7–11 percentage points across all grade bands.
•   ELA Programs: Engaged students showed a 10–13 percentage point advantage in meeting projected growth.
•   Highest gains can be seen in Grades 3–5 across both Math and ELA.
                                                                                                                       8
Recommendations
        Implementation

        • Establish a clear implementation plan for intentional usage expectations and keep an
          inventory of intended users for each platform.
        • Monitor implementation progress with Level Data and track usage and impact through
          dashboards.

        Evaluation

        • Reassess tools with low ROI if usage doesn’t improve.
        • Use Level Data ROI insights to guide instructional decisions.
        • Reduce platform clutter by eliminating underused or duplicate tools to focus on what matters
          most.

        System Improvements

        • Consolidate licenses to district-level for better tracking.
        • Standardize rostering protocols to streamline management.


                                                                                                         9
What’s Next?


Track impact across 25+     Empower leaders to       Measure results with the    Build momentum on
instructional tools to      connect teacher          full Level Data ROI suite   existing successes by
surface timely insights     coaching and mentoring   which includes reports      letting Level Data ROI
that strengthen decision-   with Level Data Grow     that link instructional     handle the heavy
making, ensure program      alongside student        rigor to student            analysis, freeing your
fidelity, and drive         outcomes, driving        performance, helping        team to focus on
sustainable student         equitable support and    districts validate          strategies that directly
growth.                     targeted actions that    investments, such as        accelerate student
                            elevate learning.        literacy initiatives.       achievement.




                 “Our goal isn’t just to invest — it’s to invest with purpose.”

                                                                                                            10
        Thank you!
We look forward to continuing
     our conversation ...
    (269) 488.7204

    www.leveldata.com

    linkedin.com/company/leveldata