Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the K8 Achievement And Curriculum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District reports strong I‑Ready growth in reading and math; leaders say proficiency gains will require multiyear work
Summary
District leaders presented K–8 I‑Ready growth and proficiency results and described curriculum, coaching and pacing strategies. Administrators and teachers highlighted notable classroom gains while acknowledging that converting growth into proficiency will take multiple years and continued coaching and coherent instructional practice.
District administrators told the school board on June 11 that the Oshkosh Area School District posted measurable growth on I‑Ready diagnostics in reading and math during the 2024–25 school year and described steps to translate that growth into long‑term proficiency.
Dr. Coleman said the district’s strength is growth: “approximately 73 percent of our students ... made typical growth in reading,” and she reported that 43 percent of students exceeded a full year’s growth; in math she said 54 percent of students met or exceeded typical growth. Coleman also said elementary reading proficiency on I‑Ready is 56 percent in the district compared with a 33 percent national average cited by staff; she identified a 3‑point increase in fourth‑grade reading proficiency from the prior year.
Administrators described system‑level actions to support sustained gains: adoption of CKLA (Core Knowledge Language Arts) for literacy, a new K–8 math curriculum, targeted coaching and a focus on planning and preparation, pacing and formative assessments. The district said it will continue professional development for instructional support teachers (ISTs), principals and classroom teachers and will use unit assessments and daily formative data to make real‑time instructional adjustments.
Two classroom teachers gave concrete examples. Bree Conrad, a grade teacher at Reid Elementary, said 17 of her 18 students improved their I‑Ready math scores this year; she reported going from four students at grade level at the start of the year to 12 at the end. Conrad credited teacher collaboration, small‑group instruction, parent outreach and staying on the curriculum pace. Sydney Levy, a grade teacher, said her team reduced the share of students three or more grade levels behind in reading from 50 percent at the start of the year to 36 percent at the end; Levy said the class percentage at or above grade level rose from 24 percent to 34 percent.
Board members pressed for clarity on policy targets and measurement. One member said a board policy set a 60 percent reading proficiency target by 2025 and asked why the board’s published goal and the district’s reporting approach (which emphasizes growth and uses I‑Ready) appear to diverge. School leaders responded that some earlier policy measures referenced other assessments (for example, PALS or Wisconsin Forward exam criteria) and that staff will return with recommended policy updates that align proficiency goals and growth measures (for example, a target of 3 percent improvement per year or statistically significant increases tied to cohort comparisons).
Administrators cautioned that converting growth into proficiency will require sustained, multi‑year implementation of curriculum, coaching and coherent instructional practices. They recommended keeping attention on growth as the leading indicator while continuing to report proficiency trends and disaggregated subgroup data to the board.
