November 10, 2016

Snowcrest Community Council 2016-2017
Minutes, November 10th, 2016

Member Attendance

Parents Present School Officials Present

Morgan Creager

Beckki Endicott

Kraig Hanson

Kim Kelson

Jori Torman

Curt VandenBosch (required member)

Maria Inglefield

Susan Roane

Public Attendance

Johanna Hofmeister


  • We met from 3:50 - 5:30 in the Snowcrest Library.
  • We reviewed data to satisfy the annual requirement and help us identify our most critical academic needs
  • We reviewed the school’s overall letter grade and the numbers behind it
  • We reviewed 2014 and 2015 comparisons of Snowcrest and 19 similar schools proficiency and median growth percentile (MGP) scores

     Snowcrest scores were generally low

     Bright spot: language arts MGP had a big jump from 2015 to 2016 from 13th place to 7th place

     Bright spot: math MGP improved from 2015 to 2016 from 16th to 13th

  • We reviewed MGP, below proficient MPG, and proficiency scores by grade and subject. We looked at different views of the same data, such as by class (i.e. looking at a group of students as they progressed through the school) and by subject (i.e. how has math done over the years)

     Note that the data includes scores from Valley Elementary

     Data by class. Class years are the year they graduate Snowcrest

     Several parents said this was the most valuable look at the data

     The scores for the class of 2017, currently in 9th grade, are significantly lower than the other classes

     The scores for the class of 2018, currently in 8th grade, are our best. Their 7th grade scores are all above district and state. Their 5th and 6th grade scores, from Valley Elementary, are almost all above district and state.

     How did testing go last spring?

     Language arts was strongest, followed by math, then science

     Note: Science scores for 9th grade are potentially not reflective of actual progress since we are a small school and 10% of our best kids move up to high school classes and do not take the Earth Sciences test with the rest of the 9th grade

     How did testing go by subject area?

     Growth in math is poor for 8th and 9th grades. The lowest was 9th grade math in 2015 with MGP of 27 compared to district MGP of 61 and state of 50. Also low as 8th grade in 2016 with MGP of 37 compared to district score of 43 and state of 50.

     Science shows good proficiency

     Science shows half good growth and half poor. 7th grade is good, above district and state. 8th grade is mixed, with 2015 being above district and state, and 2016 below district and state. (The 2016 scores are for the class of 2017 mentioned above as our lowest scoring class.) The remainder of the poor science growth are for Earth Science, where we lose our top students

     Susan presented on minority/disadvantaged students

     5.9% minority, 13.9% special ed, 5.6% other disabilities

     Students receive individual tracking and assistance

     Although the number of students are so small that averages may not be meaningful, minority students are scoring lower

  • We had many discussions on causes for high and low scores and ideas about how to improve education

     Math - we’ve had trouble retaining teachers. We could offer a stipend or performance bonus to retain top math teachers. One teacher pointed out that money is not typically a core motivation for teachers and may not work as desired

     Math - our district went without a textbook for 9th grade

     Science fairs might be made more effective by, for example, doing them in small groups with teacher interaction, as opposed to having students work on their own outside of class

     We need to offer more creative writing classes

     Having students/parents “opt in” to remedial language arts classes might be less effective than mandating them

     Our low socioeconomic status (SES) students are performing poorly -- we should discuss how we are assisting them


School Overall Grade

Handout 1 - Snowcrest and Similar Schools

Handout 2 - Growth

Sage “Go Green” Summary

School Overall Grade

School Grade



Year Grade % ELA Math Sci ELA Math Sci ELA Math Sci
2014 B* 51* 42 40 49 28* 34* 24* 33* 32* 26*
2015 C 50 37 39 47 31 27 28 32 26 30
2016 C 55 41 47 52 34 31 31 34 31 31

* These scores were based on 2014 SAGE testing as well as 2013 non-SAGE testing.

Handout 1 - Snowcrest and Similar Schools

Sage “Go Green” Summary


safeUT TipLinesafeUT Followup

© 2017 Snowcrest Junior High. All Rights Reserved.