CFB ISD presents first formal monitoring on HB 3 CCMR goals; administration cites gains and implementation risks

Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD trustees held their first formal progress-monitoring session on Feb. 19 as administration reported progress toward the district’s House Bill 3 college, career and military readiness (CCMR) goal and described the short-term goal progress measures the district will use to track it.

Mister Hunter, presenting for administration, told the board the district’s long-range HB 3 target is to increase the proportion of graduates who meet CCMR criteria from 75% to 90% by August 2030. “The percent of graduates that meet the criteria for CCMR will increase by 70 from 75 percent to 90 percent by August 2030,” he said. He described two short-term goal progress measures: GPM 3.1 (college-ready, driven by TSI2, SAT and ACT benchmarks) and GPM 3.2 (career-ready, measured by industry-based certifications).

Hunter said recent cohort data show improvement: the 2024 graduating cohort drove a sizable gain in CCMR measures and administration projects that the 2025 graduates will show roughly 96% meeting CCMR criteria when state-verified results are finalized. For current seniors Hunter said about 70% have already met at least one CCMR measure. On career readiness, he reported pathway growth and noted current soon-to-be 2026 graduates were already surpassing the district’s GPM target on industry-based certifications (roughly 38.7% meeting the measure compared with a 2030 target of 50%).

The presentation spelled out strategies tied to the GPMs: shifting TSIA2 testing windows and targeted prep sessions, aligning classroom courses to assessment timing, strengthening SAT participation and leveraging PSAT/AP data to flag students early, and operating a college-prep course as a tier-3 intervention for seniors who have not yet met CCMR benchmarks. Hunter cautioned that the college-prep course is awaiting Texas Education Agency approval for next year, which limits how definitively administration can commit to specific course content or scheduling until the state publishes its approvals.

Trustees questioned data definitions and timelines. Trustee Gilmore and others asked why TSIA2 results looked lower than SAT English scores; Hunter explained that TSIA2 percentages represent only students required to take that assessment (a subset), whereas SAT school-day is administered to all seniors. Trustees also sought clarity on which students were included in projections and how later rounds of testing this spring could change preliminary numbers; Hunter described the district’s monitoring process as a lagging-but-updating dataset that administration verifies before submitting to the state.

Board members pressed on implementation logistics and resource implications. Hunter said the college-prep course is envisioned as a tier-3 (intensive senior-year) intervention that will often be blended with English IV and math, and that existing staffing and scheduling constraints make it difficult to provide the course as a separate period for all students who may need it unless fewer students require tier-3 support. He described plans to align curriculum, assessment, CCMR and instructional teams to minimize that burden.

Trustees and administration also highlighted bright spots beyond GPMs, including increases in Advanced Placement participation and pass rates and improvements in industry-based certification leadership. Dr. Eldridge and the governance coaches framed the monitoring session as an iterative learning process for trustees and administration and said these monthly monitoring conversations would inform budget decisions that align spending to board goals.

The board did not take formal action; the session concluded with administration agreeing to continue refining data visuals and providing more details about how monitoring will be used in upcoming budget deliberations.