Midyear MAPS: Cedar Hill ISD sees mixed results — third-grade reading growth dips; Algebra I and elementary math show gains

Cedar Hill ISD presented midyear NWEA MAP results that track the board’s Lone Star governance goals for third-grade reading and Algebra I achievement and growth. The midyear snapshot (January testing window) showed mixed results across grades and campuses.

Reading: district-wide achievement at or above grade level was largely stagnant from the start of the year to the midyear window; growth measures dipped at midyear as is typical with MAP reporting, but trustees highlighted greater concern where the decline was larger than expected. Presenters said Collegiate Prep Academy showed a significant decline among third graders and that staff are working with campus leadership and teachers on targeted interventions. Presenters said interventions for reading include use of foundational reading curricula (Amplify), targeted small-group instruction during embedded "Longhorn time," MCLASS screening and progress monitoring, writing interventions for response and composition, and professional development for K–2 teachers.

Math: the report showed stronger results in K–3 math and third-grade problem solving, which staff attributed to curriculum adoption and external supports. Elementary math supports include the Eureka curriculum in K–2, a Great Minds grant partner for K–2 implementation, and additional resources focused on problem solving and teacher discourse. For Algebra I and middle-to-high school math, staff described an "algebraic reasoning" double-block offered to retesters and first-time testers to accelerate learning; early results included a roughly 47% pass rate among December Algebra I retesters who had accelerated support, and MAP growth in Algebra I showed notable gains for several demographic groups — including special education students in the midyear window.

Equity groups and specific concerns: presenters flagged special education students and the district’s high-frequency group (economically disadvantaged, emerging bilingual, special education, homeless, migrant) as groups requiring continued attention. One presenter noted the special education subgroup was small in some grades (for example, 32 students in a referenced cell) so percentage swings can reflect modest absolute counts.

Board questions focused on campus-level drivers. Trustees asked whether declines at specific campuses reflected teacher experience, leadership changes, or staffing shortages; staff said a mixture of factors — teacher experience differences, recent leadership turnover, and uneven implementation of data-driven planning and interventions — contributed. Staff named supports now in place: district instructional coordinators providing in-class coaching, targeted PLC planning, Exact Path individualized learning paths that ingest MAP results, embedded Longhorn time on campus schedules, and home-facing communication tools to help families use intervention resources at home.

Ending: staff said they will continue to monitor MAP trajectories, provide campus-level intervention plans where needed, and present the board with follow-up evidence showing how district and campus actions are intended to close identified gaps.