Student Growth in Reading

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 reading was At least 50% of regular attendees will increase achievement in reading/language arts from fall to spring.

2016-17 Reading/English Language Arts results were based on student grades and interpreted in two ways: (Additional data available)
- 43% of students (21 of 49 students) who could improve (had less than an A in fall) did improve – below the 50% benchmark
- 58% of students (7 of 12 students) had less than a C- in fall, and improved in spring – above the 50% benchmark
2017-18 Reading/English Language Arts results were based on student grades and interpreted in two ways: (Additional data available)
- Overall, 38% of students (73 of 193 students) who could improve (had less than an A in fall) did improve – below the 50% benchmark
- 33% of students (13 of 40 students) had less than a C- in fall, and improved in spring – below the 50% benchmark
2018-19 Reading/English Language Arts 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.
  - 55% 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
  - 48% met typical growth – below the 50% benchmark
In 2020-21, 23% of students (6 of 26 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, 23% of students (9 of 39 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 6: Student Growth in Reading/English Language Arts, 2016-17

Reading/Language Arts		In Spring these students had moved to these levels
Reading/Language Arts		F	D	D+	C-	C	C+	B-	B	B+	A-	A+
In Fall	6 had an F	4					1		1
	3 had a D	1				1					1
	3 had a D+					2	1
	1 had a C-									1
	12 had a C	1	1			3		2	2	1	2
	3 had a C+					1		1	1
	4 had a B-				2				2
	10 had a B			1		1		3	5
	1 had a B +										1
	2 had an A-								1			1
	4 had an A				1					1		2

Table 7: Student Growth in Reading/English Language Arts, 2017-18

Reading/Language Arts		In Spring these students had moved to these levels
Reading/Language Arts		F	D	D+	C-	C	C+	B-	B	B+	A-	A+
In Fall	11 had an F	9	1	1
	17 had a D	4	5	1		5		1		1
	12 had a D+	1	7	1	2				1
	9 had a C-	2	1		2	3			1
	35 had a C	3	3	4	3	4	7	2	8		1
	11 had a C+		2			5	1		1		1	1
	11 had a B-		1	1		1	1	2	3		1	1
	48 had a B	1	2	1	1	9	4	5	10	3	5	7
	19 had a B +					2	1	3	3	1	4	5
	20 had an A-	2						1	5	2	4	6
	40 had an A					2		1	5	1	2	29

Table 8: Student Growth in Reading/English Language Arts, 2018-19

	iReady ELA
	% Improved	% met typical growth
Meeker	54.7%	46.9%
Mill Creek	55.8%	49.0%
Total	55.2%	48.0%

Table 9: Student Growth in Reading/English Language Arts, 2020-21

Reading	N or regular attendees who could improve	N who improved one or more levels	Percent who improved	Target
Meeker	13	4	31%	50%
Mill Creek	13	2	15%	50%
Total	26	6	23%	50%

Table 10: Student Growth in Reading, 2021-22

Reading	N or regular attendees who could improve	N who improved one or more levels	Percent who improved	Target
Meeker	29	7	24%	50%
Mill Creek	10	2	20%	50%
Total	39	9	23%	50%