Sparta Area School District presents year‑one Achievement Gap Reduction plan focused on instructional coaching

Miss Manske presented the Sparta Area School District’s Achievement Gap Reduction (AGR) report during the Committee of the Whole meeting, saying the AGR program is a five‑year contract and the district is in year one of the new contract. Herman and Southside elementary schools are the two AGR schools this year, and the district selected instructional coaching as its primary strategy rather than 1:1 tutoring or maintaining an 18:1 class ratio.

The district set measurable targets tied to the I‑Ready diagnostic: by the end of the year, 80 percent of students are expected to make typical growth in reading and 70 percent are expected to make typical growth in math. Manske said those “typical growth” and “stretch growth” goals are derived from national norms embedded in the I‑Ready system and that teachers will be able to view individual student trajectories and class‑level bar charts to monitor progress.

Manske said the AGR contract requires three progress reports during the year: an initial report, a mid‑year (February) report and an end‑of‑year update. She noted that at the time of the meeting the district only had fall diagnostic scores and therefore mid‑year progress had not yet been recorded. Board member Miss Lopez and other board members asked questions about the source of the 80/70 targets; Manske responded that the reading target reflects stronger historical reading performance while math has shown slower growth, so the targets were set to be “achievable and high.”

Manske also reported district‑wide AIMSweb screening results using consistent cut scores (for fall expectations: kindergarten 18 letter names, first grade 17 words per minute, second grade 44 WPM, third grade 66 WPM). She said using the same cut scores year‑to‑year shows the district has reduced the number of students classified as at‑risk on the screening and credited targeted interventions and teacher work for the gains. A board member asked whether cohort‑level comparisons (tracking the same students from one grade to the next) could be performed; Manske said such a comparison would be possible but time‑consuming and that she could check specific measures if requested.

Manske said the district had previously used different AGR strategies (historically a 15:1 ratio and an older program called SAGE), and that decisions to change strategies (for instance when moving AGR to Herman) have been made mid‑cycle when circumstances required it. She said instructional coaching had been used for several years and was considered cost‑effective relative to sustained 1:1 tutoring.

Manske concluded she will return with an AGR update in February as required by the contract.