AMS Interventions

Hispanic/Latino students are alone in the bottom-left corner of both charts. Growth of 47 in ELA and 47 in math sits below the school's median in both subjects while proficiency is already the lowest — the only group where the gap is currently widening rather than narrowing. Nothing else on the handout is simultaneously lowest-and-slowest.

Black/African American students sit in the catching-up quadrant in both subjects. High growth (61.5 ELA, 60.5 math) with below-average proficiency is the signal that instruction is landing and the gap is closing — the strategy question here is how to keep it, not how to start it.

Two or more races flips quadrants between subjects. Highest ELA growth in the school (66), typical math growth (51) with math proficiency at 33.3%. A single group can need a math strategy and no ELA strategy at the same time.

Students with disabilities are the exception that matters. Every other group fell in 2024 and recovered in 2025. This one fell and stayed down — 2.20 → 1.83 → 1.82. A flat line at the bottom of the scale after everyone else bounced back is the single clearest signal on the handout that the current approach is not reaching this group.

White students are the other exception, in the good direction. 6.43 → 6.45 → 6.80: no 2024 dip at all, and the only group whose 2025 score exceeds its 2023 score by a clear margin.

Two groups are above their 2023 score, and one of them is a surprise. White students (6.43 → 6.80) and Hispanic/Latino students (2.38 → 2.55) are the only groups that ended higher than they started. Everyone else is still down: All Students sits at 4.95 against 5.45, and Asian, two-or-more-races, Black/African American, English learners and low-income students all remain below their 2023 mark.

Math is the school's weakest subject for almost everyone. All Students: 46.7% in ELA, 32.3% in math. Only Asian students clear half in math (55.2%). Even the two highest-achieving ELA groups — two or more races (63.3%) and Asian — drop hard in math, and two-or-more-races falls to 33.3%.

Science splits the groups differently than ELA does. Two or more races reaches 69.2% in science, the highest single figure anywhere in this section, while Black/African American students reach 22.0% — the lowest. A group can be mid-pack in ELA and at either extreme in science.

The gender pattern is consistent and crossed. Girls lead in ELA (49.7% vs 43.5%); boys lead in math (35.1% vs 29.2%) and science (44.9% vs 37.2%). Same direction as the growth data, where girls lead ELA growth 58.5 to 51 and boys lead math growth 57.5 to 53.

The two largest gaps on the whole handout are here. English learners reach grade level at 11.9% (ELA) against 60.6% for non-English learners — a 48.7-point gap. Students with disabilities: 12.2% against 54.1%, a 41.9-point gap. Both groups are under 11% in math.

Section 504 students are the surprise. They outperform their non-504 peers in ELA (53.3% vs 46.2%) and match them in math and science — the only flagged program group on the handout that isn't behind. Whatever 504 accommodation is doing here is worth naming out loud.

Income tracks everything. Low-income students trail by 25.7 points in ELA and 22.8 in math. Students experiencing homelessness reach 15.0% in ELA — but note the handout reports only a partial row for this group, and the counts behind these percentages are very small.

The math shortfall is largest for the groups doing best in ELA. Two or more races loses 30.0 points between ELA and math. Section 504 students lose 22.2. Girls lose 20.5. White students lose 17.2. These are not the groups anyone would name first in a conversation about math intervention.

The smallest gaps belong to the lowest-achieving groups — and that is a floor effect, not good news. English learners lose only 1.7 points and students with disabilities 3.5, because both are already near the bottom in ELA. Students experiencing homelessness are the single group where math is ahead of ELA, by 5 points, on very small numbers.

One group is high in ELA and close in math: Asian students (61.9% and 55.2%, a 6.7-point gap). They are the existence proof that the pattern isn't inevitable.

What this points at. A gap that widens as ELA achievement rises is a core-instruction signal, not an intervention signal. Pulling more students into math intervention would miss most of the students in the top half of this chart, who are already succeeding elsewhere in the building.

70% of special education students are three or more grade levels below in both subjects. Not below grade level — three or more years below. That is 80 of the 114 students assessed in reading and 81 of 115 in math. Tier 1 differentiation alone cannot close a three-year gap.

English learners are close behind: 64% in reading, 54% in math — and only 14% and 18% are on grade level at all. The reading number is worse than the math number, which is the usual signature of a language barrier rather than a content one.

Hispanic/Latino students are the largest group tested (217) and 42% are 3+ years below in reading, 43% in math. In raw numbers that is roughly 91 students in reading — the single biggest block of far-below students in the school, larger than the special education and English learner groups.

Math compresses the middle for everyone. Compare the two charts: reading spreads students to both ends, while in math the largest segment for most groups is "one grade below." More students are near grade level in math than in reading — but far fewer are above it.

The percentage view and the headcount view name different priorities. By percentage, special education (70%) is the most severe group in the school. By headcount, English learners are the largest — roughly 111 students in reading — followed by Hispanic/Latino students at about 91 and special education at about 80.

White students appear nowhere in the percentage view and fourth in this one. At 28% of 215 assessed, that is roughly 60 students reading three or more years below grade level — more than the Black/African American, Asian and two-or-more-races groups combined. Staffing follows headcount, so this chart plans differently than every other one in this report.

Read these as scale, not as a roster. The groups overlap heavily — a Hispanic/Latino English learner in special education is counted in three of these bars — so the numbers cannot be added together.

Seven of the nine groups agree within about six points. That is the reassuring part: the two instruments are broadly describing the same school, so neither can be dismissed when it says something uncomfortable.

Black/African American students are the one clear positive disagreement. 42.5% on the SBA, 51% on i-Ready a year later — the largest upward divergence in the data, and it lines up with this group already showing high growth (61.5 ELA) and the school's highest attendance. Three independent measures pointing the same direction is the closest thing to evidence of movement on this handout.

Two or more races diverges hardest the other way (63.3% down to 48%), on the smallest group in the comparison — 29 students assessed — where a handful of students swings the figure. Worth a look at the roster rather than a conclusion.

Students experiencing homelessness show low growth in ELA — a median SGP of 30. That is the only figure in the low-growth band anywhere in the handout. Math for the same group is 49.

Students with disabilities: 40 in ELA, 50 in math, against 59 and 56 for students without. The ELA gap of 19 points is the widest program gap on the page.

Section 504 is again the outlier in the good direction: 63 in ELA, the highest program figure on the page and above the non-504 comparison group of 55. The same pattern shows up in Alderwood's own proficiency data.

Two groups with formal support plans, and one of them is not behind. Section 504 students out-score their non-504 peers in ELA (53.3% vs 46.2%) and post the highest ELA growth of any program group on the district page (63). Students with disabilities sit at 12.2% and 40.

The gap is not explained by attendance. 504 students attend at 63.8% — well below the school's 72.1% and only 5.6 points ahead of students with disabilities. Both groups are missing a lot of school; only one of them is still reaching grade level.

The question this raises for the year. A 504 plan is typically accommodation without modified content — extended time, seating, chunked assignments — delivered inside the general education classroom. Whatever combination is producing that ELA result is the closest thing in this data to a local, working model, and it is worth asking directly what 504 practice looks like in classrooms and how much of it transfers to IEP students.

Read the growth rows with care. The two SGP measures are district-wide; the proficiency and attendance rows are Alderwood's own. The pattern holds in both, which is why it is worth raising, but they are not the same population.

The attendance ranking inverts the achievement ranking at the top. Black/African American students have the highest regular attendance in the school at 84.9%, ahead of Asian students at 83.9% — and both are far ahead of White students at 68.9% and two-or-more-races at 68.8%. Whatever is holding back Black/African American proficiency, it is not time in the building.

Two groups are in genuine crisis territory. Students experiencing homelessness: 38.5%. Mobile students: 47.4%. Fewer than half of each group makes it to school regularly, and both are roughly 25–34 points below the school. No instructional strategy reaches a student who isn't there.

Students with disabilities (58.2%) and Section 504 students (63.8%) are both well below the school average — and this is the one measure where 504 students look like a group in need rather than a group doing fine. Their attendance is 8.9 points below their non-504 peers even though their test scores are not.

Two charts, two very different pictures — from the same school and the same year. On the right the points fall close to a line: attendance tracks achievement tightly across program groups. On the left the relationship is weak and keeps breaking. Attendance is a strong predictor of outcomes for program groups and an unreliable one across racial groups.

The left chart contains two direct contradictions of the usual assumption. Black/African American students have the highest attendance in the school (84.9%) and below-average ELA proficiency (42.5%). Two-or-more-races students have among the lowest attendance (68.8%) and the highest ELA proficiency (63.3%). If attendance drove outcomes, those two points would be swapped.

Section 504 is the visible outlier on the right — 63.8% attendance with 53.3% proficiency, sitting well above the line every other program group falls on.

What this means for planning. An attendance campaign is the right lever for students experiencing homelessness, mobile students, English learners and students with disabilities, where the relationship is real and steep. It is the wrong lever for the racial achievement gaps in this building — those students are already in the room. Spending the year's equity work on attendance would address one problem and miss the other entirely.

Students experiencing homelessness had the biggest single move on the handout: 15% → 22%, seven points worse in one year. More than one grade in five issued to this group is now a failing grade, and it comes alongside 38.5% regular attendance. These two numbers are almost certainly the same problem.

Nearly everything moved the wrong way. All students 8→9. Free/reduced meals 12→14. Black/African American 8→10. Two or more races 11→13. White 6→8. Only Hispanic/Latino students improved, 13→12, and they still have the second-highest rate by race/ethnicity.

Multilingual learners and special education held flat at 15% and 12% — no worse, but no better either, while the school around them got worse. Holding steady in a rising tide is a small positive worth noticing.

Two or more races sits alone in the top-right corner. The highest F/NC rate of any racial group (13%) alongside the second-highest ELA proficiency (63.3%) and the highest science proficiency in the school (69.2%). These students demonstrably can do the work and are not getting credit for it.

That is a different problem from every other group on this chart, and it usually has a different cause — missing work, late penalties, a zero that a 90% cannot recover from — rather than an instructional one. It is also among the fastest things on this handout to change, because it lives in grading policy rather than curriculum.

Most other groups fall on the expected line: lower proficiency, higher failure rate. Multilingual learners (15% / 11.9%) and students experiencing homelessness (22% / 15.0%) are the far end of it.

Asian students anchor the opposite corner — a 2% failure rate with 61.9% proficiency. The spread between 2% and 13% among groups with comparable test results is the part worth explaining.

School-wide, belonging is 64% and teacher relationships are 49%. A 15-point gap, and the gap holds for every single group reported. Students feel they belong at Alderwood considerably more than they feel connected to their teachers specifically. That is an adult-practice finding, not a student one.

The gender split is the sharpest and the least expected. Girls report 44% positive teacher relationships against boys' 55% — an 11-point gap — while girls simultaneously outperform boys in ELA growth and proficiency. High-achieving students who don't feel connected to their teachers is a specific, addressable problem.

Hispanic/Latino and two-or-more-races students are lowest on both measures (44% teachers, 59% and 60% belonging). For Hispanic/Latino students this stacks on top of the lowest growth, lowest proficiency and below-average attendance — the only group where the academic and relational data point the same direction at once.

The single widest gender gap in the entire handout is not academic. It is teacher–student relationships: 44% for girls against 55% for boys, an 11-point spread — wider than any gap in growth, proficiency, attendance or belonging.

And it runs opposite to achievement. Girls lead in ELA growth (+7.5) and ELA proficiency (+6.2) while reporting the weakest connection to their teachers. The students doing the best work in the building's strongest subject are the ones least likely to say a teacher knows them.

Belonging and teacher relationships move together here, and both favour boys (−6.0 and −11.0). So this is not girls feeling shut out of the school generally and fine with adults — it is a consistent relational gap, largest at the point of contact with teachers.

Why this is worth a PD conversation rather than a program. Nothing about girls' scores suggests an instructional problem, so the usual responses — intervention, scheduling, curriculum — don't apply. This one is about who gets talked to, called on, checked in with, and noticed, which is exactly the kind of thing a staff can observe in each other's rooms and change within a semester.