Rockford schools report limited implementation of integrated math, pledge more coaching and checks

Rockford Public Schools administrators presented the district’s integrated-high-school-math update to the board’s performance monitoring committee, saying the curriculum and instructional resource are aligned to state standards but that consistent classroom implementation remains the district’s main problem.

Heidi Dettman, a district administrator who led the presentation, said integrated math uses the same high-school standards as the traditional algebra–geometry–algebra 2 pathway but sequences them across three years so students see concepts multiple times. “Integrated math is a way of presenting the same topics…in a more natural three‑year sequence that gives kids an opportunity to have exposure to how algebra, geometry, and algebra 2 are related,” Dettman said.

Dettman told the board the curriculum task force recommended the integrated approach after review in 2017 and the district initially rolled the CPM (College Preparatory Mathematics) resource out beginning in 2018. She said a curriculum audit this fall found the district’s materials and the CPM resource include the state standards, but some teachers reported viability concerns — that is, not having enough time or consistent access to all required materials. “Some classrooms are lacking consistent access to all the materials that they need to be successful,” Dettman said.

Dr. Gallagher, a district instructional leader who spoke after Dettman, framed the implementation problem as a matter of equity and capacity: high teacher turnover, pandemic interruptions and the resource’s collaborative, group‑work expectations made fidelity hard to sustain when classes moved to hybrid or virtual instruction. He said the district’s system‑wide framework used since 2022 tracks instructional standards and that integrated math and a second instructional standard had the lowest average scores across high schools.

Administrators reported initial measures indicating roughly 25% of teachers are fully implementing CPM strategies in ways the district considers “fully aligned.” Board members pressed for detail: Miss McCall and Miss Haley sought historical comparisons and whether the original task‑force members remain in the district; President Pearson asked whether the district measured implementation at earlier rollouts — administrators said they did not use the same audit instrument in 2019, so an apples‑to‑apples comparison is not available.

Principals and practitioners on the panel said the distinction matters between adopting an integrated sequence and implementing the instructional strategies CPM requires. Gus Carter, Guilford High School principal, said the curricular shift (students taking integrated courses rather than separate algebra/geometry/Algebra 2 years) has taken place; the gap is strategy fidelity in classrooms. “Integrated math has taken place. We're shifting to the standards or to the actual instructional strategies that CPM as the resource…requires. That has been where the challenge really lies,” Carter said.

Administrators outlined next steps: expand targeted professional development and coaching, increase supports for teacher professional learning communities (PLCs) using a $40,000 Regional Office of Education (ROE) partnership to place REA coaches into Jefferson and Lincoln for weekly PLC work and classroom coaching, continue an Academic Return on Investment (AROI) study, and return to the board with a midyear checkpoint on March 4, summative instructional scores in June and final recommendations in August.

District staff also said they would analyze which of the state’s 54 high‑school math standards are most “leverageable” across the three integrated years so teachers can prioritize instruction where time is limited. Administrators acknowledged attendance, staffing shortages, teacher workload and turnover as continuing constraints and said the district will use improved walkthrough rubrics and principal calibration to raise classroom consistency.

Board members requested more precise implementation metrics and a clearer explanation of the 25% figure; administrators said they would follow up with the calculation method and promised further data in upcoming reports.

Ending: The integrated‑math discussion was informational; no formal vote was taken. Administrators set timelines for follow‑ups (March 4, June and August) and committed to deliver clarifying data about the implementation metric and to expand coaching and PLC supports.