Oshkosh — District leaders told the Board of Education on Nov. 5 that math proficiency on the Wisconsin Forward Exam declined from the previous year and that persistent gaps remain between demographic groups.

The presentation, led by Dr. Coleman and Director Cole, summarized spring Forward Exam results for grades 3–8: the overall percentage of students scoring at or above proficiency fell from the prior year, with English learners, students eligible for free or reduced‑price lunch and students with disabilities lagging the district average. Fifth grade showed a modest increase in proficiency; other grades declined. Officials warned that changes to Forward cut scores in recent years complicate direct trend comparisons.

Why it matters: the Forward Exam is a lagging indicator that districts use to evaluate multi‑year instructional changes. Administrators said the decline does not reflect their intended destination and framed the results as evidence for sustained, systemwide work rather than a single‑year failure.

"Many things can be true at once," Dr. Coleman told trustees, adding that the district has strong teachers and leaders but must build system consistency so more students reach grade level. Director Cole said the district is early in a multi‑year implementation of new materials and supports and that leading indicators (I‑Ready diagnostics, common formative assessments and weekly classroom learning‑walks) already show signs of promise.

What the district will do: presenters described four main components of the district’s improvement strategy — (1) consistent use of high‑quality instructional materials (Bridges 3 in elementary grades; Illustrative Math in middle grades; CKLA and StudySync in literacy), (2) focused professional learning and classroom coaching, (3) district‑wide common formative and unit assessments, and (4) frequent monitoring via calibrated "rigor and engagement" walks and dashboards (Forefront/NextPath) that give principals and coordinators near‑real‑time data.

Timing and expectations: officials repeatedly told the board to expect an "implementation dip" while teachers learn new materials and coaching deepens. They cited research and district planning that show 3–5 years of focused implementation is a typical timeline for teachers to fully leverage a new math curriculum.

Board concerns and context: trustees raised several questions during an extended Q&A about whether school consolidations, changing demographics and student mobility could be influencing results. One board member noted a 14.1‑percentage‑point drop at Menominee after consolidation and asked staff to disaggregate contributors; staff replied they will keep refining school‑level data and adjust supports where needed.

On equity: presenters emphasized subgroup monitoring. Director Cole said the district is using item analysis to change pacing and instruction in units where students scored lowest and to align practice with the kinds of questions students will see on state exams.

Looking ahead: administrators proposed presenting a multi‑indicator dashboard to the board three times per year (beginning/mid/end) that shows both growth and proficiency so trustees and the community can track progress more frequently than annual statewide exams.

"We're building a foundation that is necessary to shift our system," Dr. Coleman said. "That journey is in its early phases."