The Data Behind Conquer the CAASPP
Across two subjects, multiple years, and several independent assessments, students who complete Conquer the CAASPP consistently score higher than students who don't. And just as often, families and teachers tell us those students walk into testing calmer and more confident.
These are real results from partner schools, not a controlled experiment: the participant groups are smaller than the comparison groups. And the gains reflect students who completed at least 80% of the course. Even so, the pattern holds across every subject, year, and test we've measured.
Two subjects · multiple years · independent assessments · consistent gains
CAASPP Results
We compare students who completed at least 80% of the program (participants) with those who did not enroll (non-participants), across recent CAASPP administrations (Spring 2023 through Spring 2025).
Scores shown as average Distance From Standard (DFS). Higher is better; zero means meeting the standard.
How to read these charts: each bar is the average Distance From Standard (DFS). Zero means meeting the grade-level standard, above zero is above it, below zero is below. In each pair, the solid bar is program participants and the lighter bar is non-participants.
Math
Non-Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Students
Three years running, participants pulled ahead, climbing from below standard to well above it while non-participants stayed flat.
Show full statistics
Spring 2025: control (n=7,478) averaged -17.9 DFS; treatment (n=199) averaged +13.0 DFS. t = 4.73, p < .001 (highly significant).
Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Students
Every year, participants stayed far closer to standard than non-participants.
Show full statistics
Spring 2025: control (n=5,136) averaged -63.6 DFS; treatment (n=141) averaged -30.4 DFS. t = 4.51, p < .001 (highly significant).
Bottom line: in every year and both student groups, Math participants outscored non-participants, and participants climbed toward and past the standard while non-participants stayed below it.
English Language Arts
Non-Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Students
Participants finished far above standard, and well ahead of non-participants.
Show full statistics
Spring 2025: control (n=7,676) averaged +17.36 DFS; treatment (n=113) averaged +50.92 DFS. t = 3.82, p < .001 (highly significant).
Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Students
Participants moved from below standard to above it; non-participants dropped further below.
Show full statistics
Spring 2025: non-participants (n=5,351) averaged -25.37 DFS; treatment (n=46) averaged +28.22 DFS. t = 3.84, p < .001 (highly significant).
Bottom line: ELA participants scored well above non-participants every year, landing above the standard even among socio-economically disadvantaged students.
Local Assessments
Many partner schools use local assessments alongside the CAASPP, including i-Ready, NWEA MAP, and Renaissance STAR. We run ongoing analysis on these too. Students who complete Conquer the CAASPP not only do well on the CAASPP, they tend to gain on their local assessments, and families and teachers consistently tell us those students feel more confident and less anxious about testing.
i-Ready (Math)
These charts compare Math participants and non-participants on i-Ready, using two measures: the percent of students meeting i-Ready's typical annual growth, and average percent of annual growth achieved.
Meeting Typical Annual Growth — Non-SED Students
63% of participants met the growth threshold, vs 57% of non-participants.
Meeting Typical Annual Growth — SED Students
61% of participants met the growth threshold, vs 52% of non-participants.
Average Percent Progress — Non-SED Students
Participants averaged 142.8% of annual growth, vs 115.7% for non-participants.
Average Percent Progress — SED Students
Participants averaged 136.7% of annual growth, vs 112.2% for non-participants.
Show full i-Ready statistics (including grade-band breakdowns)
Average Percent Progress — overall
- Non-SED: control (n=3,980) mean 115.74; treatment (n=475) mean 142.78. t = -3.68, p = 0.00025 (highly significant).
- SED: control (n=2,116) mean 112.24; treatment (n=155) mean 136.66. t = -1.94, p = 0.0543 (a strong trend, just above the .05 threshold).
Grades 3-5
- Non-SED: control (n=1,991) mean 88.05; treatment (n=239) mean 105.59. t = -2.76, p = 0.0062 (significant).
- SED: control (n=1,064) mean 79.08; treatment (n=77) mean 99.69. t = -1.83, p = 0.0703 (a strong trend; a 20-point gain).
Grades 6-8
- Non-SED: control (n=1,989) mean 143.45; treatment (n=236) mean 180.44. t = -2.89, p = 0.0042 (significant).
- SED: control (n=1,052) mean 145.79; treatment (n=78) mean 173.17. t = -1.26, p = 0.211 (an upward trend; would firm up with a larger sample).
About this data
These are real outcomes from partner schools, not a randomized controlled trial. Participant groups are smaller than the comparison groups, and participants are considered those enrolled in the course who completed at least 80% of the course. The results are observational, but the gains are consistent across subjects, years, student groups, and independent assessments. A few comparisons show strong trends that fall just short of the conventional significance threshold; we report those honestly in the full statistics rather than leave them out.