Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Academic Performance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alvin ISD midyear review: reading and CCMR on track; attendance and math lag
Summary
At a February 2025 board meeting, district leaders said midyear data show improvements in attendance and reading but that the district is not yet on track to meet annual attendance and math goals; leaders outlined targeted support for priority campuses.
Alvin Independent School District leaders presented a midyear academic review to the Board of Trustees in February 2025, saying the district is on track to meet House Bill 3 goals for third‑grade reading and to exceed career, college and military readiness (CCMR) targets, but is not currently on track to meet its district attendance or math goals.
Dr. Valdez, who presented the report, summarized the district’s overall standing: “Are we currently on track to meet this? The answer to that is no.” She said the district is taking a conservative approach at midyear — if targets are not on track now, the district treats them as unmet so it can write stronger plans to reach year‑end goals.
The report said first‑semester average daily attendance rose from 95.3% last year to 95.5% this year — an increase of 0.2 percentage points, short of the board‑approved goal of a 0.3 percentage‑point increase. On third‑grade benchmarks tied to House Bill 3, the district reported a reading goal of 59% for the first CBA and a result of 60%; the math goal was 50% and the first CBA result was 42%. District staff reported CCMR was projected at 79%, above a 76% goal.
The presentation included district explanations for the math shortfall. Bobia Shaw, executive director of curriculum, told trustees that adjustments to the district’s interim assessments (CBAs) and an increased passing standard contributed to lower measured outcomes this midyear. She also cited an unintended effect of “Senate Bill 21 24,” which the presentation said removed a summer‑bridge requirement that previously ensured intensive instruction for many students placed into advanced math; district staff said more than 100 students therefore did not receive that intensive instruction and are now in higher grades without it.
District leaders described several interventions aimed at reversing the trends. Dr. Shandar Hobbs, executive director of curriculum, outlined a “priority schools” model that pairs struggling campuses with a designated academic leader who visits once or twice weekly for coaching, classroom observation, planning support and focused professional learning. The report highlighted practices such as rehearsal of lessons with peers before classroom delivery, tighter lesson planning, frequent quick checks and reassessments after reteaching, and use of data walls to monitor individual student progress.
Valdez told trustees the midyear report is a summary of a larger document the district provided to the board: the packet includes campus‑level reports and performance objectives the district is tracking for the school year. She said the detailed packet was distributed to trustees the previous Friday.
Trustees asked questions during the presentation about program details and implementation. The district presented priority‑school examples showing midyear gains in writing and reading at specific campuses where leadership and teaching practices had been targeted.
The presentation did not include board action; it was framed as a status report and planning briefing for follow‑up work by campus and district staff.
