Manitowoc schools show largely flat assessment results; district outlines targeted ELA work, plans for math interventionists and ACT focus

Manitowoc School District staff presented two years of assessment results showing little overall growth and multiple schools performing below the state average in English language arts and math.

District presenters said one elementary school remains above the state in ELA, but overall the district is “across the board below the state in math as well.” They described a targeted ELA intervention process that began last year at the elementary level and will expand into middle schools this school year. A district presenter said, “we have plans in place and we’re very hopeful that we’re gonna see some improvement.”

The district described the ELA work as a “pretty targeted intervention process,” focused on tiered supports and extending expectations and clear plans down to 4K. Staff said universal instruction work from recent years is now being paired with more focused interventions and that Act 20 helped start that work. Presenters noted that, at present, the district does not have math interventionists at the elementary or middle-school level and that hiring or funding such positions would be brought back to the board in the spring.

High school standardized testing also drew attention. District staff reported the district’s 201x ACT composite was 17.8 compared with a state composite of 19.2, placing the district roughly two points below the state across subject areas. The district said the high school team is implementing a "100-day plan" that identifies ACT strands by department and adjusts classroom assessments and instruction to mirror ACT question styles. A presenter observed the ACT composite goal would be to approach a 20, and noted, “36 is the max on the ACT.”

Staff described multiple ongoing actions to support improvement: weekly PLC work at buildings, targeted professional development (PD) such as recent PD days for elementary teachers and small-group reading training for K–2, expanded principal coaching on instructional leadership, and the use of interim measures (FastBridge, STAR and team-developed assessments) to monitor progress. One staff member said classroom teams are shifting to an outputs/results orientation—regularly measuring student performance and using that information to choose interventions.

District presenters and committee members also discussed variability across schools. Staff said there are “pockets” of stronger performance but no consistent pattern districtwide; they called for investigating higher-performing sites to identify replicable practices. Committee members pressed for clarity on what additional resources—particularly math interventionists—would cost and what hiring timelines would look like. Staff said they would return with more detailed plans.

The discussion also touched on test administration: the district plans to provide student practice on the ACT’s online platform, and staff noted the ACT changed its composite construction (removing science for the overall composite in a recent revision) which could affect comparisons.

The presentation concluded with staff saying the combination of targeted interventions, expanded PD, and closer monitoring should produce growth, though presenters cautioned that full effects may take multiple years after curriculum implementation and that next-year results could again appear neutral while teachers and students adapt.