Success For Each Child & Eliminate the Opportunity Gap by Leading with Racial Equity

Student Growth in Math

Given the change in measures each year, results relative to the objectives are presented for each year, and are not comparable across years.  The program’s objective for math was At least 50% of regular attendees will increase achievement in reading/language arts from fall to spring. 

  • 2016-17 Math results were based on student grades and interpreted in two ways: (Additional data available) 
    • 38% of students (18 of 48 students) who could improve (had less than an A in fall) did improve – below the 50% benchmark 
    • 29% of students (4 of 14 students) had less than a C- in fall, and improved in spring – below the 50% benchmark 
       
  • 2017-18 Math results were based on student grades and interpreted in two ways: (Additional data available) 
    • 38% of students (67 of 177 students) who could improve (had less than an A in fall) did improve – below the 50% benchmark 
    • 49% of students (32 of 65 students) had less than a C- in fall, and improved in spring – just below the 50% benchmark  
       
  • 2018-19 Math results were based on iReady scores and interpreted in two ways, as listed below with related results: (Additional data available) 
    • % improved – the percent of regular attendees whose scaled score improved from fall to spring.   
      • 72% of students improved – above the 50% benchmark 
    • % met typical growth - the percent of regular attendees whose scaled score met the typical growth for their fall diagnostic placement level which reflects the average growth of students at that placement level based on the 2018-19 iReady growth model 
      • 37% met typical growth – below the 50% benchmark 
         
  • In 2020-21, 37% of students (10 of 27 students) who could improve (were 1 Level Below, or 2 or More Levels Below in fall) did improve – below 50% benchmark (Additional data available) 
     
  • In 2021-22, 27% of students (12 of 45 students) who could improve (were 1 Level Below, or 2 or More Levels Below in fall) did improve – below 50% benchmark (Additional data available) 

Table 11: Student Growth in Math, 2016-17 

Math In Spring these students had moved to these levels
F D D+ C- C C+ B- B B+ A- A+
In Fall 5 had an F 4     1              
7 had a D 2 2   1 1         1  
2 had a D+   2     2 1          
4 had a C- 1 1     2            
6 had a C   1     1 2     2    
1 had a C+               1      
3 had a B-           1       1 1
10 had a B 1       2   1 2 2   2
3 had a B +             1   1   1
7 had an A-         1   1 4     1
6 had an A             3     1 2

 

Table 12: Student Growth in Math, 2017-18

Math In Spring these students had moved to these levels
F D D+ C- C C+ B- B B+ A- A+
In Fall 31 had an F 17 4 3 1 4 1   1      
23 had a D 9 5 2 2 4   1        
11 had a D+ 2     2 4 1 1 1      
6 had a C-   1     2            
29 had a C 2 4 4 2 6 2 2 5 1   1
13 had a C+ 2   1 3 1 2 1 2   1  
12 had a B- 1 1 1   2   2 4   1  
28 had a B 1 3   3 4 2 2 10 1 1 1
9 had a B +               4 2 2 1
15 had an A-         1     7   3 4
55 had an A   1     1 1 1 8 1 2 40

 

Table 13: Student Growth in Math, 2018-19 

  iReady Math
% Improved  % met typical growth 
Meeker 79.3% 39.6%
Mill Creek 64.7% 33.3%
Total 72.1% 36.5%

 

Table 14: Student Growth in Math, 2020-21 

Math N or regular attendees who could improve N who improved one or more levels Percent who improved Target
Meeker 14 7 50% 50%
Mill Creek 13 3 23% 50%
Total 27 10 33%

50%

 

Table 15: Student Growth in Math, 2021-22

Math N or regular attendees who could improve N who improved one or more levels Percent who improved Target
Meeker 31 10 32% 50%
Mill Creek 14 2 14% 50%
Total 45 12 27%

50%