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

Student Growth in Reading

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
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
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%