Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prosper ISD reports A rating, campus distinctions and strong accountability metrics in TA‑PER presentation
Summary
At the March 9 meeting Prosper ISD staff presented the Texas Academic Performance Report (2024–25 data), saying the district earned an A rating, two campuses earned distinctions, and the district reported zero weapons and zero felony controlled‑substance incidents on campus for the reported year.
Prosper ISD officials presented the district’s Texas Academic Performance Report for the 2024–25 school year during the board meeting on March 9. The district’s presentation covered academic outcomes, financial standards, accreditation status and student post‑secondary indicators.
Miss Cochril, presenting the year‑lagged TEA report, told the board that Prosper ISD received an overall A rating for 2024–25 and highlighted two campuses that earned distinctions for comparative academic growth and closing gaps. She emphasized that the TEA rating and many measures are based on the previous school year’s data because state reporting is lagged.
“We received an A rating for the 24‑25 school year,” Miss Cochril said during the presentation, noting the report also showed the district consistently outperforming region and state averages in reading, math, science and social studies on the compiled measures.
The presentation also covered fiscal reporting: the district received a superior achievement designation on the financial standard report, and TEA recorded Prosper ISD as “accredited” for the relevant cycles. On safety measures, the district reported zero incidents of weapons on campus and zero felony controlled‑substance violations for the reporting period, which presenters described as notable given the district’s enrollment size.
Miss Cochril summarized student post‑secondary performance indicators, described the district’s CCMR (college, career and military readiness) tracking and noted staff efforts to expand dual‑credit and CTE programming. She also warned that some accountability indicators change over time and that district‑level CCMR figures are lagged (for example, 2025 accountability reflects the class of 2024).
Board members asked no substantive follow‑up questions during the presentation portion. The board received the report; no formal action was required.
