Seattle schools present mixed math progress: district on track overall but gaps persist for multilingual learners and other groups

Seattle School District No. 1 presented an interim progress monitoring report on elementary and middle‑school mathematics to the board during a special meeting, laying out a five‑year target and interim measures while acknowledging that current trends amount largely to maintenance rather than the accelerated growth the district seeks.

"The percentage of sixth graders prepared to succeed in math coursework in seventh grade as measured by sixth grade Smarter Balanced assessment will increase from 56.8 percent in June 2025 to 66.8 percent in June 2030," Dr. Torres Morales said while outlining the district's top‑line goal and differentiated subgroup targets. The district uses MAP (Measures of Academic Progress) as an interim, predictive assessment and Smarter Balanced (SBA) as the summative measure.

Torres Morales told the board the fall MAP‑based projections for spring 2026 show modest change from the prior year for many cohorts (for example, fifth‑grade predicted proficiency for all students was 48.9% versus 47.2% last year) and described the district's overall rating for several interim measures as "maintaining." He also highlighted subgroup targets: for one interim measure, the percentage of students of color furthest from educational justice in grade 5 is projected to increase from 34% (2025) to 44% (2030).

Directors pressed staff for clearer evidence that the district's strategies will close persistent gaps. "I'm not seeing how we're closing the gap there," Vice President Briggs said, pointing to parallel percentage increases that would leave the absolute gap between all students and targeted subgroups largely unchanged on the current trajectory. Torres Morales acknowledged the concern and said some of the interim measures require further clarification with the data team.

Several directors singled out multilingual learners. "It looks like the longer a multilingual learner is in our school system, the farther behind they're falling," Director 12 said, asking whether the district can produce cohort analyses and targeted interventions. Torres Morales acknowledged the issue and said staff will pull additional data on students who exited multilingual services and measure their outcomes to better understand patterns.

On the question of classroom practice, Torres Morales and other staff described a set of district strategies they call "pathways to success": high‑quality tier 1 instruction implemented with fidelity, curriculum‑embedded assessments to identify skill gaps, stronger PLCs (professional learning communities), coaching and walkthroughs, multi‑tiered systems of support (MTSS), and expanded learning opportunities such as targeted summer programs and a district math empowerment course. "In an ideal state, we'd have 1, a data tracking system... 2, the vetted curricular resources... and 3, the actual guidance for teachers and principals," Torres Morales said.

Directors asked for more concrete, funded plans rather than broad labels. "Tier 1 is not a strategy," Director Rankin said, urging the district to present specific interventions for multilingual learners, students with IEPs and students eligible for free and reduced lunch, and to explain how proposed changes will be resourced in the budget. Staff agreed to return with more granular, school‑level toolkits and to clarify how MAP predictive measures will be used to change instruction earlier in the year.

Superintendent Scholdner, in his first board meeting after taking office, described classroom visits he had made and emphasized two linked priorities: ensuring the curriculum is taught with fidelity and using data to identify and support students who are close to proficiency. "What I saw is really wonderful teachers... but even in two classes next to each other teaching the exact same curriculum, one class was rocking it out, and one class maybe needed some more support," he said, arguing that the district must deploy instructional staff into schools and equip teachers with concrete differentiation strategies.

The board requested follow‑up materials including cohort analyses, clearer interim‑measure explanations, and a plan that ties specific instructional strategies for targeted subgroups to budget and staffing decisions. Staff said they would return with those details and appendices that dig deeper into the datasets. The board then recessed before moving into the meeting's budget study session.

The presentation and subsequent questions are part of an ongoing monitoring cycle; no formal action or vote occurred on the math goals at this meeting.