CFB ISD trustees briefed on assessment dashboards and how data drives campus planning

District leaders told the Carrollton‑Farmers Branch ISD Board of Trustees on Oct. 10 that the district is using multiple data platforms to move from assessment results to targeted instruction and campus plans.

Presenters demonstrated several tools — screenshots from OnData Suites and Axiom (Eduphoria) and LeadForward templates — and described how each serves a distinct role: OnData Suites provides interactive snapshots that administrators can click through to see which students meet growth criteria; Axiom/Eduphoria is updated daily and incorporates newly enrolled students; and LeadForward supplies structured templates principals use to summarize campus needs. “We have, what some might call, the Maserati of data platforms,” a presenter said, drawing board attention to the systems’ range of reports.

Why it matters: the district uses a layered assessment cycle (summative, interim, formative, screeners) so leaders can identify trends from district-level accountability down to standard and question levels in classrooms. Presenters showed examples of counts that highlight the tools’ drilldown power — for instance, the dashboard view that showed 2,701 masters-level school records that remained at masters and 944 that dropped to meets — and explained how item-level review can reveal whether a few questions (or a single prompt) drove the change.

Trustees pressed on newcomer students and prediction accuracy. Board members asked how recently enrolled students affect accountability predictions. Presenters said some assessments are administered in students’ home language (for bilingual students the district will give math in Spanish where appropriate) and that prediction tools differ in which students they include: OnData Suites is a snapshot keyed to the state file, while Axiom/Eduphoria includes every currently enrolled student, which can make short‑term predictions appear lower when newcomers are included. “We’re accountable to every student,” a presenter said, describing the district’s approach to measuring growth for students who do not fall in the state accountability subset.

The presenters described the district’s campus accountability meetings (conducted in fall and spring) where directors and coaches work with principals to translate report findings into targeted interventions. They also noted technical limitations and integration work: certain College, Career and Military Readiness (CCMR) indicators require verification across systems, and exchanges with the state are sometimes needed to reconcile student identifiers and historical records (the district relies on Texas’s unique student ID/TSDS to retrieve prior testing history).

Trustees asked about teacher-facing views. Presenters showed a “leadership report card” and single‑test and multi‑test templates that allow teachers to align multiple assessments by standard across the year, enabling classroom-level monitoring of percent masters/meets/approaches. District staff emphasized training for directors and instructional coaches so teachers can use the tools effectively rather than spending time on data retrieval.

Next steps: staff offered to prepare additional data-action reports on request and to continue training campus leaders. The presentation closed with board thanks and an offer to pull further views tailored to trustees’ requests.