Which data point is most useful for a principal deciding whether to fund a math intervention program?

The data point regarding student math performance from the beginning of the school year compared to the end of the school year provides a clear and direct measure of the program's effectiveness. This comparison showcases the progress that students have made in their math skills over the course of the intervention. By analyzing the growth in performance, the principal can assess whether the program has had a significant positive impact on student learning outcomes.

This longitudinal data is particularly valuable as it highlights not only if students are achieving proficiency but also how much they have improved, which is critical when determining the return on investment for funding such interventions.

In contrast, the other choices offer insights but do not provide the same level of clarity regarding the effectiveness of the math intervention program itself. Student attendance in the program may indicate engagement but does not necessarily correlate with actual learning outcomes. Feedback from students can shed light on their experiences and perceptions but lacks quantitative evidence of learning gains. Similarly, performance on previous state assessments, while potentially relevant, may not accurately reflect the current impact of the intervention, especially if there have been changes in teaching methods, curriculum, or student demographics since that assessment was administered. Hence, the end-of-year performance data is the most useful for making informed funding decisions related to the program.