Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Achievement Gap Reduction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board weighs achievement-gap reduction data and classroom supports
Summary
Administrators clarified that AGR figures reported are fall-to-spring i‑Ready percentage-point gains (example cited: Jefferson first grade increased from 36.4% to 80% proficiency, a 43.68-point change). Board members stressed that AGR funds support staffing but are not a standalone solution; qualitative classroom observations and universal instruction remain central to closing gaps.
Administrators told the Oshkosh Area School District board on June 24 that the achievement-gap reduction (AGR) report figures represent the difference between fall and spring i‑Ready proficiency percentages, not a final single-window proficiency score. As an example, the AGR presenter said Jefferson first grade’s fall proficiency was 36.4% and rose to 80% in spring, yielding a 43.68 percentage‑point increase.
An administrator emphasized that the assessment windows use progressively rigorous instruments tied to grade-level expectations, so reported percentages reflect changes between windows rather than identical tests. The presenter said AGR funds were used to place additional adults (reading/targeted-practice support) in most kindergarten‑through‑third‑grade classrooms at selected AGR schools; where additional adults were present, teachers reported better ability to differentiate instruction.
Board members asked how success should be measured. Barb said she supports holding a proficiency goal (noting an 80% target discussed previously) but wants growth and qualitative evidence from coaches and teachers to factor into evaluations. Another board member said AGR funding “is not a magic bullet” and recommended pairing the staffing supports with effective universal instruction and classroom essentials.
Administrators said they will continue to disaggregate AGR outcomes and collect qualitative observations from coaches and teachers to inform program refinements and staffing decisions. No formal action was taken; the conversation was positioned as part of ongoing monitoring and future reporting.
