Sharyland ISD presents midyear 'what‑if' accountability data; district leaders call it a 'temperature check'

Sharyland Independent School District Chief Instruction Officer Pam Montalvo presented a midyear data report to the Board of Trustees showing mixed results across early‑childhood and K‑12 measures and offering modeled "what‑if" accountability scores based on the district's Benchmark 2 results.

Montalvo said the early‑childhood assessments — Pre‑K measures in English and Spanish, the state's TexKiA for kindergarten, TPRI for first and second grades in English, and Tejas Lee in Spanish — are being used to “measure progress, informing our instruction.” She described the Benchmark 2 figures as a point‑in‑time snapshot and said the district ran the scores through the state's scaling calculator to produce hypothetical campus accountability ratings should the year end at the benchmark results.

The presentations emphasized that Benchmark 2 is an interim diagnostic. Montalvo cautioned the board that several tested items, particularly in science, math and social studies, reflect content teachers will cover later in the year: "the teachers had not taught [some questions], so that's another reason I know that these scores will increase dramatically as we move forward," she said. Board members asked for detail on early reading indicators; one member noted phonological awareness and letter‑sound measures in kindergarten that did not improve from beginning‑of‑year to middle‑of‑year.

Superintendent Howard framed the packet as an early check rather than a final judgment. "This is a temperature check," Howard said, and he urged steady, transparent communication with the community. Howard and Montalvo described actions already taken: individualized, grade‑level and teacher‑level plans following data meetings with principals; moving content specialists to on‑campus coaching roles; and added targeted supports such as tutoring and software practice assignments. Montalvo also noted instructional staffing and classroom tools requested and, where already procured, deployed (for example, additional campus support and devices for students lacking appropriate peripherals).

Board members and staff also discussed two procedural items affecting math pathways: Montalvo referenced Senate Bill 2124's requirement that the state's top students be placed on accelerated math pathways beginning in fifth grade, which she said is changing classroom dynamics as schools implement advanced sequences earlier.

Montalvo and the superintendent warned that statewide litigation over accountability reporting remains unresolved and could affect whether official letter grades are released this cycle. A board member asked whether final A–F ratings would be published this year; Montalvo replied that release remains subject to pending litigation and uncertainty at the state level. Howard said the district proceeded with the "what‑if" modeling to be transparent and to guide interventions regardless of whether the state posts final ratings.

The presentation included examples of short‑term engagement: the district ran an IXL spring‑break challenge and named top campuses by average correct responses. Montalvo said the data team will return to the board after spring testing with updated figures.She said district staff expect scores to change as instruction continues and additional content is taught.

The board did not take a formal vote on the academic data during the meeting; the report was received for discussion and follow‑up.