Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Report Card And Curriculum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee flags report-card challenges, spells out 100-day curriculum actions
Summary
Committee members reviewed the state report card (two-year data window), discussed growth-versus-achievement weighting across schools, noted pockets of strong practice and workforce-preparation outcomes, and heard a detailed hundred-day plan for curriculum rollout and PLC coaching.
The Manitowoc School District curriculum and instruction committee spent most of its meeting reviewing the state report card and discussing the district's early implementation steps for a new curriculum.
Speaker 2, a district staff presenter, said this year's state report card reflects two years of data — not three — because of prior changes to cut scores and the Forward Exam. Speaker 2 explained that the state weights growth differently depending on school demographics, which can raise the overall score for higher-poverty schools where growth is prioritized over raw proficiency.
Members examined school-by-school results. Speaker 3 pointed to Madison as an example of relatively low proficiency (56.6 in ELA proficiency cited) paired with strong growth (cited growth score 84.1), while Speaker 2 noted Jefferson — identified as the district's highest-poverty school — as showing strong growth as well. Speaker 1 drew attention to Lincoln's overall score (53.4) and asked whether that reflected changing state terminology; Speaker 2 confirmed the updated score categories appear on the chart the presenter shared.
Committee members balanced critique with recognition of positive results in career-related measures. Speaker 4 highlighted that the district's industry-recognized credentials rate is 7.7% versus a 5.5% state average and that the district's work-based learning rate is 20.6% compared with 8% statewide.
On next steps, Speaker 2 outlined the district's hundred-day plan: summer professional learning for principals and teachers, rollout templates for building-level PLCs, observation and coaching by district leaders (explicitly not an evaluation), and expanded middle-school reading interventions led by district reading specialist Abigail Neerdink. Speaker 2 said a midyear review of local assessment data (FastBridge, AimsWeb Plus, STAR) will follow the winter testing window to compare fall-to-winter results.
Committee members raised concerns about PLCs that are "checkboxy" or dysfunctional when participants lack facilitation skills; Speaker 2 said the district is providing coaching to principals and building teacher skills so PLCs become effective. Members also discussed teacher licensure gaps and a cohort of younger teachers hired after a staffing exodus; speakers agreed the district must grow and retain teachers through concentrated supports.
The committee did not make new policy decisions during this discussion but acknowledged the need for multi-year implementation and measurement to move district results.
