If you use Renaissance Star Reading, Star Maths, or Star Early Literacy in your school, you already know how quickly these computer-adaptive tests pinpoint where students are struggling. What you might not know is how to translate those data points into actual classroom decisions. A reading scale score of 728L feels meaningful until you realise your Year 4 class has scores ranging from 450L to 900L and no clear way to match books to readers. Similarly, a Star Maths percentile rank can tell you who's behind but not why, or what intervention might close the gap. This guide moves beyond the numbers and shows you how to interpret Star data in ways that actually change what happens in your classroom.
What Are Star Assessments and How Does Computer-Adaptive Testing Work?
Star Assessments use computer-adaptive testing (CAT) to measure reading and mathematics achievement. Instead of every student answering the same questions in order, the computer adjusts question difficulty based on each student's responses. Get one right, the next one gets harder. Get one wrong, it gets easier. This dynamic adjustment happens in real time, which means Star finishes measuring students in about 20-25 minutes instead of the hour-long paper tests schools used to rely on.
The power of adaptive testing lies in precision. A traditional test gives every student a fixed set of items; it wastes time on questions that are too easy or too hard, and it leaves wide uncertainty about where a student's true ability sits. Computer-adaptive testing homes in on each student's actual performance level within a narrow band, then stops. Renaissance Learning engineers this by calculating a measure called the Rasch scale, named after the measurement theorist Georg Rasch. The Rasch model converts raw test scores (number of items correct) into equal-interval scales where the distance between 600 and 610 represents the same increase in difficulty as the distance between 700 and 710. This matters because it makes scores from different test forms directly comparable, even if the questions are different.
Here's a Year 3 example. You give your class the Star Reading benchmark in October. Aisha finishes after 22 questions and gets a scale score of 634L. Ethan takes 18 questions and scores 541L. The L denotes Lexile Framework, which Renaissance uses to map reading difficulty onto a universal scale (explained below). The computer stopped asking Ethan harder questions because his performance suggested he wasn't ready; it kept asking Aisha progressively harder questions because she showed she could handle them. Both assessments took about 20 minutes. A traditional test would have given them both 40 or 50 items, half of which would have been too easy for Aisha and too hard for Ethan.
One critical point: computer-adaptive tests measure what a student can do on the day they sit the test, under exam conditions, with technology they may or may not be familiar with. They do not measure reading fluency, reading behaviours, or comprehension strategies a student uses flexibly in real classroom reading. This distinction matters enormously and will matter more when you compare Star scores to your own classroom observations, which we address in detail in section six.
Star Reading, Star Maths, and Star Early Literacy: What Each Measures
Renaissance Learning offers three products, each targeted at a different age phase and skill domain. Understanding what each one actually measures prevents the mistake of treating reading scale scores as gospel truth about student ability.
Star Reading measures reading achievement from kindergarten through to secondary. The test format changes across age ranges: younger students see narrative and informational passages paired with multiple-choice questions; older students tackle longer, more complex texts with inference and vocabulary questions embedded. The reported score is a Lexile Framework measure, denoted in the format [number]L. A Lexile of 300L indicates text difficulty; a student with a Rasch scale score equivalent to 300L can read and comprehend texts at that difficulty level with about 75 per cent accuracy (this is the benchmark Renaissance uses for "stretch" reading). The scale runs from below 0L (picture books) to 1400L+ (secondary literature and academic journals).
Star Maths measures mathematics achievement across procedural fluency, conceptual understanding, and problem-solving. Unlike reading, which adapts across text types and genres, Star Maths adapts across mathematical domains: a student might start with addition, shift to geometry if they show strength there, then move into algebraic thinking. The scale is different from Lexile; it's a Rasch-based scale ranging from roughly 0 to 1400, where higher numbers indicate greater mathematical sophistication. A student with a Star Maths scale score of 545 might show strong computation but weaker reasoning; a student with 680 might handle multi-step problems and applied contexts. Star Maths also assesses growth, so schools often run it three times a year (autumn, spring, summer benchmarks) to measure trajectory.
Star Early Literacy is designed specifically for ages 4-6 and measures foundational reading skills: letter recognition, phonemic awareness, sight word knowledge, and simple phonetic decoding. The scale runs from 0 to 400, and the format is explicitly designed for young children. Test items use animated characters and shorter response windows. If you teach nursery or reception, Star Early Literacy is typically your first touchpoint with Renaissance data; students graduate to Star Reading in Year 1 or Year 2 depending on school policy and reading readiness.
A Year 2 class example: Your reception cohort did Star Early Literacy in June 2024. Average scale score was 187, which suggests most children are secure with letter naming and initial sound recognition but not yet blending consistently. In September 2024, after summer small-group phonics work, you run it again. The cohort average jumps to 224. You promote 15 children to Star Reading for autumn half-term baseline; five remain on Early Literacy with targeted phonological awareness support. The children promoted to Star Reading average 420L, suggesting they can read simple CVC words and very short captions independently.
Understanding Scaled Scores, Percentile Ranks, and Grade Equivalents
Star reports give you three different ways to interpret performance: scaled scores, percentile ranks, and grade equivalents. Each one answers a different question and each one can mislead you if you misread it.
The scaled score is the Rasch-adjusted measure that makes the CAT magic work. For Star Reading, it's the Lexile (the number with the L). For Star Maths, it's a 0-1400 scale. Scaled scores are equal-interval, which means they're the only measure you should use when tracking growth or calculating class averages. If half your class gains 50 Lexile points and the other half gains 30, the average growth is 40 points, not "we made mixed progress." The minute you start averaging percentile ranks or grade equivalents, your maths breaks down because those scales are not equal-interval.
Percentile rank tells you where a student sits relative to a reference group, usually national norms or your school's own cohort. A student at the 75th percentile scored higher than 75 per cent of students in that reference group. Percentile rank is intuitive for talking to parents ("your daughter is in the top quarter of her year group") and useful for flagging students who are falling significantly behind peers. But percentile rank obscures growth. A student might jump from the 40th to the 50th percentile and appear to have made modest progress; in reality, if there was cohort compression at the lower end of the scale, that jump could represent significant growth in absolute terms. Always look at scaled score growth alongside percentile rank change.
Grade equivalents are the riskiest number to use without context. A grade equivalent of 5.2 means "this student performed at the same level as a typical student in the fifth grade, second month." It sounds precise; in reality, it's an interpolation. Renaissance didn't necessarily test actual Grade 5 students in February; they used statistical modelling to extrapolate where Grade 5 performance would sit. Grade equivalents also create a false sense of curriculum alignment. A student with a grade equivalent of 6.5 in Star Reading is not necessarily "ready for Year 7 curriculum"; they've simply reached a point on the Lexile scale where a typical Year 7 student would sit, and Year 7 English curricula vary enormously across schools.
Here's how to avoid these pitfalls in practice. Your Year 5 class takes Star Reading in October (autumn benchmark). The report shows:
- Taran: Scaled score 652L, percentile 72, grade equivalent 5.8
- Khalid: Scaled score 581L, percentile 48, grade equivalent 4.9
Many teachers look at Khalid's grade equivalent and assume he's "nearly a year behind." In fact, Khalid is about 70 Lexile points behind Taran, which is meaningful but not insurmountable (roughly equivalent to the difference between early Year 5 texts and mid-Year 4 texts). The grade equivalent obscures this reality. In January (spring benchmark), you run the test again:
- Taran: 671L (up 19 points)
- Khalid: 618L (up 37 points)
Khalid made nearly twice the growth of Taran. But if you looked only at grade equivalents, you might miss this progress because the jump from 4.9 to 5.3 doesn't sound as dramatic as it is. Use scaled scores to track growth and percentile rank to flag cohort-level concerns; use grade equivalents only for parent conversation, and always explain what they do and do not mean.
The Zone of Proximal Development: Matching Books to Readers
Lev Vygotsky's concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is perhaps the single most useful lens through which to interpret Star Reading data. The ZPD is the gap between what a child can do independently and what they can do with skilled support. Reading that falls in the ZPD is neither too easy (no growth) nor too hard (overwhelming); it's the sweet spot where a reader stretches slightly and makes progress with scaffolding.
Vygotsky's theory predicts that a student should read books at or slightly above their independent reading level, not far above it. The Renaissance Learning research team studied thousands of classrooms and found that students make the strongest comprehension gains when reading texts at their Lexile level plus up to 50L above it. This range is called the "target range" or "ZPD match." A student with a Star Reading scale score of 650L grows fastest when reading texts between 650L and 700L. Below 650L, the reading is too easy and growth plateaus. Above 700L, the text becomes frustrating; students skip words, lose motivation, or develop avoidance behaviours (Metametrics research, 2015).
This is where Star Reading becomes genuinely useful in classroom selection. If your library is levelled by Lexile (and increasingly many schools' libraries are, either natively or via third-party systems like Beanstack), you can pull books with precision. Your Year 3 class has a wide range of readers. Fatima has a Star Reading score of 480L; you put her in the 480-530L range. Marcus is at 720L; he reads from the 720-770L range. Everyone is reading age-appropriate content at their actual level, not your guess at their level.
The catch: Lexile levels are reliable measures of text difficulty but not of text interest or relevance. A book might be lexically at 520L but narratively uninspiring for your class. Conversely, a book at 580L might be so engaging that a student at 480L will push through the vocabulary challenge. This is where your professional judgment and formative assessment come in. Star gives you the starting point; your knowledge of your students' reading behaviours, interests, and resilience and growth mindset shapes the final selection.
One more critical nuance: the Star Reading Lexile is a measure of reading difficulty as determined by sentence length, word frequency, and semantic complexity. It does not account for background knowledge. A Year 4 reader with a 650L score can decode and process a 650L text, but if that text is about quantum physics and the reader has never encountered the concept, comprehension breaks down. The reader's background knowledge, prior vocabulary, and domain experience all create a secondary "zone." An effective library has Lexile variety within domains: multiple options at each Lexile level covering different genres and topics so readers can find texts that match both their reading level and their background knowledge.
Reading Attainment vs Reading Growth: Which Number Matters More?
Schools often report Star Reading in two ways: attainment (where students are right now) and growth (how much they've progressed). This distinction is crucial because a school can look flat on attainment but be doing extraordinary work on growth, and vice versa.
Attainment is a snapshot: "In October, the year group's average Star Reading score was 620L." It tells you where students sit on the absolute scale. You compare attainment across classes, across year groups, and across years. It answers the question "are our Year 3 cohort now stronger readers than last year's Year 3 cohort?" and "is our lowest-attaining group getting farther behind?"
Growth is the change from one benchmark to the next: "Students gained an average of 35 Lexile points between autumn and spring." It tells you the rate of progress. You compare growth against national growth norms; Renaissance publishes guidance on what constitutes typical progress. For Star Reading, a typical Year 3 student gains 20-40 Lexile points across a school year. A Year 5 student might gain 15-25 points (growth slows as students reach higher proficiency). If your Year 3 gained 50 points on average, you're accelerating. If they gained 10 points, you're decelerating, which might signal reading instruction needs attention.
The reason both matter is this: a school with high starting attainment but low growth is potentially coasting. A school with lower attainment but strong growth is making real progress with their students. A school with high attainment and strong growth is clearly doing strong work. A school with low attainment and low growth is in crisis mode.
In practice, here's how to interpret dual reports. In September, your Year 4 attainment (based on spring Year 3 scores) was 568L (class average). This was below the national average of 580L for Year 4. Over autumn to spring, your class grew from 568L to 603L, a gain of 35 points. Your growth rate exceeded national norms (which expect 15-25 points for Year 4). In the absolute sense, you're still below national average attainment. But you're closing the gap and doing it faster than expected. This tells you your reading instruction is working; you simply inherited a cohort that started slightly behind, and you're accelerating them to match peers.
Dylan Wiliam's research on formative assessment emphasises that growth data is more actionable for teachers than attainment data alone. Attainment tells you which students need support; growth tells you whether your support is actually working. If you're running Star benchmarks three times a year, you have a mid-year checkpoint. If autumn-to-spring growth was weak for a particular group, you have a chance to shift intervention approach before the summer. This is why some schools run autumn benchmark, then spring, then summer, staggered across different year groups so teachers have time to act on results rather than just report them.
What to Do When Star Scores Contradict Your Professional Judgement
You trust your observations. You've watched Isla read aloud, discuss ideas, and self-correct mid-sentence. Her reading behaviours scream sophistication. But her Star Reading score is 610L, well below the school average of 650L for her year group. Or the opposite: Dev's Star Maths score is 680, suggesting he's strong with reasoning and applied problems. But in your classroom he freezes on multi-step problems and avoids asking for help.
This dissonance is normal. Star measures one thing: performance on a computer-adaptive test under timed, exam-like conditions. Your classroom observations measure something richer: reading and mathematical behaviours across varied contexts, motivation, persistence, and growth over weeks, not 20 minutes. When they conflict, both are telling you something true; they're just illuminating different parts of the picture.
Start by unpacking the discrepancy. If Isla's Star Reading is lower than you expected, look deeper at what the test actually measures. Star Reading focuses on comprehension of written passages, vocabulary, and inference. It does not measure oral retelling skill, which Isla might excel at. Comprehension on a computer screen with a timed response might feel different from comprehension in a guided reading group with think-aloud prompts. Isla might have strong reading behaviours but slower processing speed, particularly when managing the test interface. The star score is telling you "Isla processes written text at a 610L level under these specific conditions." Your observation is telling you "Isla shows sophisticated reading behaviours in guided contexts." Neither cancels the other out.
Here's how to use the discrepancy productively. Design a small formative assessment that bridges the gap. If you suspect the issue is processing speed or test format, give Isla a 610L passage in a non-timed, supported setting with you asking comprehension questions aloud. If she answers those questions accurately, the Star score reflects interface/speed friction, not comprehension ceiling. If she struggles, the Star score is a valid signal and you've now confirmed it. If Dev freezes on multi-step maths problems in the classroom but scored 680 on Star Maths (which definitely includes multi-step items), explore whether the issue is procedural confidence or engagement. Give Dev a multi-step problem without the timed pressure, with visible working space, and with permission to use manipulatives or drawings. If he solves it, the Star score reflects test anxiety or conditions-dependent performance. If he still struggles, the Star score is a valid signal that his reasoning is stronger than his multi-step execution.
These small diagnostic bridges transform Star from a numbers game into a formative assessment tool that informs your instruction. You're not dismissing Star or your own judgment; you're triangulating. And that triangulation often reveals not that someone is "miscategorised" but that a student has strengths and needs in different contexts, and good instruction meets them where they are.
Using Star Assessments in SEND and Intervention Planning
Students with SEND often show high variability across domains or between ability and output. A student might have strong conceptual understanding (evidenced by explanation and reasoning) but slow processing speed (evidenced by Star Maths taking longer and covering fewer items). Another might have sight word knowledge but struggle with comprehension (Star Reading score lower than phonics knowledge would predict). Star data is valuable for these students precisely because it isolates the skill being measured.
For identification and screening, Star Reading and Star Maths are valuable tools for flagging students who might benefit from additional support. A student consistently in the 20th percentile or below warrants investigation. This doesn't mean the student has a specific learning difficulty; it means there's a gap worth understanding. Is the gap consistent across reading domains or localised to vocabulary? Is it visible in classroom observation or only on the computer-adaptive test? Is it stable or widening? These questions guide assessment and referral decisions.
For intervention planning, Star data works best as one input, not the sole input. An intervention for a student scoring 450L in Star Reading might address decoding fluency, sight word automaticity, vocabulary knowledge, or comprehension strategy depending on what classroom observation and additional assessment reveal. If you have access to item-level data from Star (some schools purchase this add-on), you can see which types of questions the student struggled with. Did they miss mostly inference questions? Vocabulary in context? These patterns guide the focus of intervention.
One critical point: Star measures what a student can do on a standardised test. It does not measure working memory load, attention span, or the support mechanisms that allow a student to function in your classroom. A student with an ADHD diagnosis might score lower on Star than their classroom performance suggests because the timed, low-stimulation computer environment doesn't include the routine, movement breaks, and multi-sensory engagement that help them regulate in the classroom. For this student, Star is one data point, not the defining one. Your accommodations and environmental strategies are equally important evidence.
For differentiation in the classroom, Star provides a clear starting point. You know each student's reading level and maths level in absolute terms, which lets you group and select materials with precision. Pair this with observation of learning behaviours, motivation, and strategy use. A group reading at 550-600L Lexile might need different support depending on whether they're all struggling with inference (strategic intervention) or a mix of decoding, vocabulary, and comprehension (broader support needed). The Lexile tells you the reading level; observation tells you what kind of instruction they need at that level.
How to Communicate Star Results to Parents and Carers
Parents understand percentile rank intuitively ("your child is in the top 25 per cent of their year group") but often misunderstand scaled scores and grade equivalents. Your job is translation without over-simplification.
Start with context, not numbers. Parents care whether their child is "on track," not what a Rasch scale score of 678L means. Frame the conversation around what the test measured and what it didn't: "Star Reading measures how well your child reads and understands written passages under timed conditions. It's a valuable snapshot of their current reading level, but it doesn't capture everything we see in the classroom, like how they discuss books, predict what might happen, or ask questions when they're confused."
Then use percentile rank as your primary metric with scaled score as support: "Your son scored in the 68th percentile for Year 4, which means he's reading at a higher level than about two-thirds of children in his year group nationally. On our school's Lexile scale, that puts him at 645L, which is right where we'd expect a Year 4 reader to be in February." This gives them both the familiar percentile framing and the concrete Lexile number.
Avoid grade equivalents in parent communication unless specifically asked. If a parent pushes for "what year is he working at," you can say "He's reading at the level of a typical Year 4 student in February, which is exactly where we'd hope to see him in his Year 4 journey." This reframes the grade equivalent as a national reference point, not a label.
Always pair results with classroom context: "On Star, he's strong with inference questions and vocabulary in context, which tells us his comprehension strategies are developing nicely. In the classroom, I've noticed he's starting to ask questions when he's unsure of a word, which shows growth mindset. We're going to keep him in the 640-700L range for independent reading and gradually introduce more complex texts in guided reading."
For students who scored lower than parents expected, name the dissonance and explain it: "Star Reading showed a score of 520L, which was lower than you might have expected based on what you see at home. That can happen for a few reasons: some readers process more slowly under timed conditions, some find the computer interface a bit tricky, and some show stronger reading behaviours in conversations than in silent reading tests. We're going to monitor this over the next benchmark. In the meantime, in guided reading I've noticed she's strong with character inference but sometimes misses details when scanning for information quickly, so we're working on that."
This approach positions Star as useful information that's complemented by your observations, not as verdict from on high.
Three-Window Assessment Cycles: Getting the Most From Benchmark Data
Many UK schools run Star three times a year: autumn (September/October baseline), spring (January/February mid-year checkpoint), summer (June end-of-year). This three-window rhythm, sometimes called the "three-point assessment cycle," gives you enough data to spot trends while allowing time to act on findings.
Autumn benchmark establishes the starting point and often feeds into class grouping, library levelling, and initial intervention identification. After autumn, most schools spend two weeks examining results, talking to children and parents, and planning adjustments. Autumn data answers: "Where is each student starting?" and "Are there any students we missed in summer assessments?" By late October, those answers are baked into your classroom organisation.
Spring benchmark (typically January or February half-term) is your progress check. This is where growth data becomes actionable. If a student or group made weak progress, you've got 4 months of summer term to shift approach. If they made strong progress, you might accelerate or deepen challenge. Spring data answers: "Is our teaching working?" and "Which interventions should we adjust or intensify?" Teachers who use Star well often meet as year groups after spring results to review growth and make decisions about intervention adjustments.
Summer benchmark is the final snapshot and the starting point for next year's team. It answers "where are students ending?" but more importantly "what does next year's teacher need to know?" A Year 4 class with strong average growth but still below national attainment tells next year's Year 5 teacher "this cohort made excellent progress but started behind; they may need continued support in reaching year group expectations." A Year 4 class with high attainment but slowing growth tells the Year 5 teacher "this cohort is strong but may be coasting; they might benefit from increased challenge."
To embed this cycle in your school:
Autumn (October after results): Use student-level data to inform reading group placement and Lexile range allocation for individual students. Identify students more than one year below expected attainment and plan initial assessments.
Spring (January/February after results): Calculate growth for each student and each group. Compare to national growth norms. Hold year group meetings to review growth data, discuss which interventions worked and which need changing, and plan summer term adjustments.
Summer (June after results): Compile cohort summary for next year's team. Prepare a half-page summary for each student noting starting attainment, year-on-year growth trend, and any persistent or emerging concerns. Include notes on learning behaviours (engagement, attitude to challenge, response to support) because Star tells you reading/maths level but not learning profile.
This cycle is not complex, but it requires that schools actually use the data rather than just collect it. If results arrive in January and no one looks at them until March, the three-window advantage collapses. If results sit in dashboards and never get discussed, data becomes theatre. Effective schools build space into the calendar after each benchmark for result analysis and decision-making.
The Limitations of Star Assessments: What They Cannot Tell You
Star measures reading comprehension and mathematics reasoning under specific test conditions. It does not measure reading for pleasure, reading fluency, or oral language. It does not measure mathematical reasoning in real contexts or ability to explain mathematical thinking. It does not measure persistence, growth mindset, curiosity, or willingness to engage with challenge. It does not account for anxiety, test-wiseness, or the impact of test format and technology on an individual's performance. Understanding these gaps keeps you from over-interpreting Star and ensures you're triangulating with classroom observation and other assessment tools.
Reading fluency is perhaps the most important gap. Star measures comprehension; a student with strong comprehension but slow, choppy oral reading will still score well on Star because the test uses silent reading. This is fine for identifying comprehension level, but it misses fluency entirely. A Year 4 reader at 650L (appropriate level) who reads haltingly at 80 words per minute needs fluency intervention. Another Year 4 reader at 650L who reads smoothly at 130 words per minute has achieved fluency and can focus on deeper comprehension. Star alone won't tell you which is which; oral reading fluency assessment (WCPM measurement, observation of prosody) will. For primary schools especially, pair Star with fluency data.
Mathematics reasoning in context is another gap. Star Maths includes word problems and applied items, but it does not measure whether a student can identify the mathematical problem hidden in a real scenario (which item do I need to work out first?), whether they can justify their strategy to a peer, or whether they can persist with a novel problem type without a procedural template. A student who scores 680 on Star Maths can solve multi-step problems on a test. A student who blanks on a genuine mathematical problem in a project-based context might show different performance. Again, not a flaw in Star; it's a limitation of any standardised test, and you need formative, observational, metacognitive assessment of problem-solving to see the full picture.
Attitudinal and engagement factors are invisible to Star. The test format rewards speed and accuracy; it doesn't measure whether a student enjoys reading, seeks out books, or feels confident as a reader. You can have two students with identical Star Reading scores, one of whom reads voraciously at home and one who avoids reading. Star won't distinguish them. Your classroom observations, book choice surveys, and reading aloud culture will. These are essential data points for understanding reading identity, not just reading level.
Test anxiety and neurodiversity also affect Star performance in ways the score doesn't reflect. A student with ADHD who took the test after a chaotic morning might have scored lower than their baseline. A student with test anxiety might have rushed through items and made careless errors. A student with a visual processing difference might find the screen format challenging despite strong comprehension. A student for whom English is an additional language might score lower on vocabulary-heavy items despite strong mathematics conceptual understanding if they take Star Maths. You can't see these factors in the score; you see them only by watching the student take the test or by asking them about the experience afterwards.
This is why the most effective use of Star is not to treat it as the source of truth about a student's ability but as one input into a rich triangulation: Star data (attainment and growth) plus your classroom observation and formative assessment plus feedback from students about their experience. When all three align, you have high confidence in your understanding. When they conflict, you have a clue that something important is hidden, and you dig deeper.
Making Star Work for Your Teaching
Star Assessments are valuable because they measure reading and mathematics level consistently, repeatedly, and across a whole cohort without the admin burden of teacher assessment at scale. But they're only useful if you actually change what you do based on the results. That means: running Star three times a year so you have growth data; reviewing results within a few weeks of getting them and making classroom decisions (grouping, library level, intervention focus); comparing growth against norms to see whether your instruction is accelerating, maintaining, or decelerating progress; and triangulating Star scores with your own observations so you understand not just reading/maths level but learning profile, engagement, and needs.
The strongest schools use Star to hand every teacher and every student a clear picture of reading and mathematics progress, then use that picture to inform instruction, not replace it. Your professional judgment, your knowledge of your students, and your formative assessment remain central. Star is the precision tool that lets you zoom in on level and growth; observation, conversation, and formative assessment are what let you see why and what to do about it.
Start with autumn benchmark. Use those results to place students in the right Lexile/scale range for their materials. Run spring benchmark three months later, calculate growth, and use that insight to adjust interventions or accelerate challenge for strong progressors. Pair every Star score with "what did I observe this week in reading/maths instruction?" and "what does this student need to progress further?" If you answer those questions consistently, Star becomes what it was designed to be: a formative assessment tool that illuminates what's working and what needs changing.
