Rockford SD 205 leaders reported the final findings of a two‑year Academic Return on Investment (ARI) study on secondary math during the Committee of the Whole meeting, concluding that training rates were high but classroom implementation and student outcomes lagged.

The study, which covered grades 6–12 and looked at staff training, quality implementation and student outcomes, found that only about 22% of high‑school classrooms met the study’s definition of “quality implementation” (nine or more of 11 instructional “look‑fors” present during walkthroughs), while middle schools showed higher but still limited implementation at about 44%.

District officials said nearly all secondary teachers received curriculum training this year — including CPM workshops for high schools and expanded coaching contracts — but that deeper classroom practices (students working in groups, using math discourse and mixed spaced practice) were not yet widespread. High‑school freshmen passing course targets and standardized growth measures also fell short of goals.

Leaders described a next step package for 2025–26 that prioritizes job‑embedded coaching, strengthened professional learning communities (PLCs) and scope‑and‑sequence alignment. The district plans monthly coaching cycles with vendor coaches (i‑Ready coaches for middle school and CPM coaches for some high schools), monthly monitoring meetings among principals, curriculum leaders and coaches, and a district rollout of PLC guidance that was developed by an ad‑hoc committee of principals and association representatives.

District presenters said the study did not show a clear correlation between teacher attributes (years taught, prior training) and implementation; instead, successful implementation appears tied to on‑site coaching, principal support and healthy PLCs. Officials also stressed that implementation gains can take multiple years to translate into measurable student achievement gains.

The presentation prompted several board members to press for clear midyear checkpoints and contingency plans if students do not show growth after the 2025–26 coaching and PLC rollout. District staff said January 2026 would be a critical point to assess progress using interim screening data and PLC evidence and that changing a curricular resource before full implementation could risk additional multi‑year setbacks.

Ending: District leaders said they will report back on implementation and student screening results next year and incorporate teacher feedback into a three‑year curriculum refresh plan; no formal board action was taken at the meeting.