Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Achievement Gap Reduction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Beloit officials credit instructional coaching for gains; AGR funds to continue supporting K–3
Summary
District leaders described progress on achievement gap reduction funding, emphasized instructional coaching and tighter alignment of curriculum and interventions, and set more ambitious grade-level benchmarks for the coming year.
Beloit School District administrators told the Teaching, Learning, Equity & People Services Committee that work funded by the Achievement Gap Reduction (AGR) program has focused on instructional coaching, aligning high‑quality curricular materials and targeted interventions for K–3 students, and that preliminary data show year‑over‑year gains.
Dr. Kelly (referred to in the presentation) and other district staff said AGR is restricted grant funding for elementary grades intended to close achievement gaps; the district receives “just under $3,000,000 every year” through AGR and distributes that funding to K–5 schools on a per‑pupil basis. Staff said the district uses AGR funds primarily to hire instructional coaches and, where possible, reduce class sizes.
Officials described coaching as a research‑based lever for instructional improvement. A district presenter summarized the approach: coaches provide job‑embedded professional learning in classrooms, support teacher teams and deliver direct student interventions, and help implement high‑quality instructional materials with fidelity. The district cited national meta‑analytic research on coaching and implementation science as the rationale for the strategy.
The presentation reviewed recent benchmark data tied to the district’s adopted materials and internal assessments. Staff said they set more challenging targets for the coming grant cycle: on literacy they aim to lift third‑grade students meeting the district benchmark from 36% to 41%; in math they plan to raise the share of K–3 students meeting a higher threshold of mastery from 24% to 30%.
Board members asked about how coaching effects are measured locally, and staff said coaching data are kept confidential because coaching is not an evaluative process for teachers. Staff said teachers participating in repeated coaching cycles show incremental growth; the district also tracks benchmark trends and state report card measures to monitor progress.
Administrators said particular attention will be paid to third grade, where some buildings missed literacy goals, and they called for an urgent, continuous‑improvement focus on math and literacy implementation.
The committee accepted the report and was told the district will provide an end‑of‑year summary to the full board and to DPI as required by grant rules.
