CMS math‑1 monitoring: district projects modest gains but falls short of targets, board presses for DOK‑3 focus

Superintendent Mary T. Hill presented Charlotte‑Mecklenburg Schools' first monitoring report on Goal 3 (math outcomes), showing modest projected gains but shortfalls against annual targets.

The data: Using first‑benchmark MVPA results, the district projects that 31% of students taking Math 1 this school year will score college‑and‑career ready (CCR) on the end‑of‑course assessment; the annual target for 2024‑25 is 37%. Middle‑school students taking Math 1 are projected at 65% CCR (target 75%), while high‑school Math 1 students are projected at 16% CCR (target 19%). Dr. Hill said these projections reflect the first benchmark and that the district will update projections after the year‑end assessments.

Why it matters: Goal 3 seeks steady annual increases so the district can reach a 57% CCR rate by 2029. Board members pressed presenters about differences between middle and high school results, strategies that have appeared most effective, and how multilingual learners and students needing intervention are supported.

Key board questions and district responses: Board members asked which strategies produced growth; Dr. Hill identified the new problem‑based elementary curriculum, aligned professional development, and core action walks as high‑impact interventions. On the gap between grade‑level proficiency and CCR, district staff said students were performing better on lower Depth‑of‑Knowledge (DOK) items than on DOK‑3 items and that instruction and curricula must emphasize higher‑level tasks.

On interventions and multilingual learners, staff described MTSS processes using multiple data points and progress monitoring and said multilingual scaffolds are embedded in units rather than wholesale translation. The district also noted targeted specialist support three times per week for identified students.

Ending: Board members asked the district to accelerate growth for high‑school Math 1 and to provide more disaggregated analysis by student group once the benchmark cadence is harmonized across course offerings. The report did not include new formal board directives at the meeting; discussion centered on implementation and next‑step metrics.