Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spring ISD trustees hear local improvement plan progress as principals point to data‑driven instruction
Summary
Spring ISD trustees reviewed 2025‑26 local improvement plans and turnaround updates on March 3, 2026. Campus leaders cited data‑driven PLCs, weekly walkthroughs, and targeted coaching as core strategies while trustees pressed for clearer benchmark and cohort comparisons.
Spring Independent School District trustees spent much of their March 3 work session focused on local improvement plans and campus turnaround progress, hearing presentations from campus leaders who cited data‑driven instruction and coaching as the primary levers for accelerating student gains.
Superintendent Dr. Craig Quer opened the discussion by pointing to systemwide progress and the district’s accountability priorities. “We do not run from the data. We move towards it,” he said, noting double‑digit retest gains at comprehensive high schools and a reported rise in the district’s CCMR metric.
The board then heard detailed updates from campus leaders. Mr. Mlan, principal at Springwood Village Middle School, described a plan to move the campus from a D to a B rating through “strengthening tier‑one instruction, standardized PLC agendas, teacher‑student data trackers, frequent checks for understanding, and coaching cycles tied to student data.” He told trustees the campus has implemented weekly walkthroughs and a minimum of 10 classroom visits per week to provide immediate feedback to teachers.
At Dany High School, principal Connie Smith and Dr. Smith presented quarterly turnaround metrics including double‑digit improvements on benchmark measures for English and algebra and rising CCMR indicators. They said frequent PLCs, coaching cycles and an emphasis on instructional internalization are central to sustaining the gains.
Trustees asked detailed questions about how benchmark data aligns with STAAR/EOC cohorts and the lagging nature of CCMR accountability. Trustee Jensen and others requested that the administration provide prior‑year (2023‑24) comparisons and an explanatory brief on which cohorts the various charts reflect so the board and public can compare like cohorts across time.
District staff acknowledged the request and committed to adding clear cohort labels and a short CCMR overview at an upcoming meeting. No formal board action was taken; the presentations will inform later decisions on district goals and required state submissions.
Looking ahead, the district plans additional public communication about feeder‑pattern surveys and continued quarterly monitoring of campus improvement targets.
