Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Student Assessment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Holcomb principals and teachers report reading-growth gains on iReady and FastBridge

Holcomb Unified School District Board of Education · February 13, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Elementary and high-school staff presented iReady and FastBridge assessment results showing median typical growth around 82% at one school and notable Tier 2/Tier 3 improvement at the high school; teachers described tiered interventions and follow-up plans.

Principals and staff reported student assessment results and described instructional responses to the data.

Mrs. Albrecht (Speaker 5) summarized iReady math diagnostic results, saying the district is in its first year of implementation and reporting a median typical-growth figure of roughly 82 percent; 24 students earned recognition for meeting both typical and stretch goals. Mrs. Tine (Speaker 6) said her building will use diagnostic data to structure 'power hour' interventions, calling out plans to target students who are "on the bubble" between meeting and not meeting stretch goals.

At the high school, Rachel Davis (Speaker 8) presented FastBridge winter reading results: freshmen benchmark attainment at 47%, juniors at 72%, with varied growth percentages across tiers. Davis described tiered intervention classes (tiers 1———3) and reported strong improvement for students in Tier 2 and Tier 3, including five students who moved from Tier 2 into Tier 1 after interventions. She emphasized continued monitoring and re-assessment in spring.

Teachers and administrators framed the results as evidence the interventions are working and said they will continue tiered supports and monitor progress on the next testing cycle. The presentation included named examples and percentages but no individual student data beyond group counts.