The Cedar Hill Independent School District Board of Trustees approved the district improvement plan (DIP) and individual campus improvement plans with corrections on a unanimous vote, and directed staff to return with clarified, measurable progress targets. Trustee Carmen Morgan moved to approve the DIP “as presented with noted corrections”; the motion carried unanimously. Trustees later approved campus improvement plans with a separate motion, also unanimously.

Why it matters: The DIP frames the district’s priorities — student achievement and teacher readiness — and sets measurable performance objectives and a board monitoring calendar. Trustees pressed for more precise, SMART‑style performance measures, clearer fidelity standards for programs such as Study Island and Exact Path, and accountability data for Advanced Placement (AP) courses and assessments.

What the board approved: The plan presented to trustees reflects the DEIC (district educational improvement committee) findings and the district leadership’s recommended objectives. Key committee‑identified problem statements and root causes cited during the presentation included:
- Chronic absenteeism: committee data showed roughly 22% of scholars were chronically absent; the committee identified inconsistent follow‑up with families as a root cause.
- Enrollment loss: 648 scholars withdrew from the district in the prior year, a decline that the committee linked to a lack of engagement with the Cedar Hill community.
- Teacher capacity and certification: the committee noted that 27% of CHISD teachers were uncertified and approximately 48% had fewer than five years’ experience, which the committee tied to inconsistent instruction depth and complexity.

Performance objectives and targets (as presented and discussed): The DIP lists board goals and aligned campus objectives. Examples discussed in the meeting included:
- Third‑grade reading (district target presented): increase from 38% to 46% (end‑of‑year target by a stated planning horizon in the plan).
- Third‑grade math: increase from 36% to 51%.
- CCMR (college, career and military readiness) measures: targets to increase college readiness indicators (examples cited included TSI met percentages and industry‑based certification rates).

Trustee questions and requested changes: Trustees repeatedly asked staff to make targets and the strategies measurable and time‑bound. Specific trustee requests included:
- Provide campus‑level baseline (beginning‑of‑year) and midpoint (MOY) numbers alongside end‑of‑year targets so the board can monitor progress at each checkpoint.
- Add fidelity measures for digital programs (Exact Path, Study Island) so administrators can report how the district is measuring successful implementation and the expected return on investment (for example, time‑on‑task or minimum proficiency thresholds tied to program minutes or assignments).
- Add AP course accountability to the board monitoring calendar (how many students enroll, how many take the AP exams, and how many earn qualifying scores).

Data briefings included NWEA (MAP) results: District staff presented an NWEA‑based progress check showing both performance and growth measures by grade and campus, and repeatedly reminded trustees that BOY/MOY/EOY NWEA percentiles are norm‑referenced and that targets get more challenging over time. Staff also agreed to present the data in campus‑filtered views so collegiate‑school outliers do not mask performance gaps at other campuses.

Board monitoring calendar and next steps: Staff said the board will receive regular updates on the DIP and the guardrail progress measures. The board will see monitoring items on a monthly calendar; staff committed to adding AP score reporting and to clarifying how attendance and truancy progress meetings will be reflected in future reports. Trustees approved the DIP and campus plans with noted corrections and asked for a November progress report on specific root causes called out by trustees.

Ending: Trustees approved the DIP, campus plans and related consent agenda items at the meeting, and instructed staff to return with clearer, measurable progress metrics — especially for interventions tied to digital programs and for higher‑level accountability (AP and CCMR) — as part of the board monitoring calendar.