Judson ISD shares preliminary STAR/NWA results, cites gains in some grades and urgent gaps in others

Judson ISD trustees met in a special session June 8 to review the district’s early assessment results and next steps after preliminary STAR and NWA files showed a mixed picture of student achievement.

Superintendent Dr. Jay opened the presentation, saying the numbers on the table represent "chapter one" of the district’s story: early domain‑one achievement data that are incomplete until the state releases additional performance‑level and growth files in July and August. "This is the early part of our data," Dr. Dhart Toppen told the board, warning that more files would arrive in the coming days and that the district would continue to refine the picture.

District staff summarized NWA screener results showing median percentile increases in some math measures (a cited rise from the mid‑30s to around the 50th percentile in one aggregate) and steady or modest gains in several other subjects. Denisa (Denise) Rosco Jones — the staff member presenting STAR early achievement figures — said the STAR snapshot shows bright spots (notably fifth‑grade math and biology, where many students earned "approaches and above") alongside sharp declines that require attention.

"We have a bright spot in fifth grade math," Jones said, while flagging that third‑grade math and seventh‑grade math had unexpected declines and that eighth‑grade social studies and some high‑school EOC areas also lagged. Jones explained the technical limit on current conclusions: the district has the raw achievement buckets but has not yet received the state’s performance‑level indicators and growth files that determine final accountability outcomes.

Trustees pressed staff for causes and fixes. Board members and staff repeatedly pointed to three diagnostic themes: (1) test‑item complexity and literacy demands in higher‑grade math (especially seventh grade), (2) gaps in vertical alignment of academic vocabulary and concepts across grades 3–7, and (3) inconsistencies in coaching, feedback and monitoring systems.

District leaders said they will pursue a set of near‑term actions: dig into item‑level test files that arrived recently, convene cohorts of teachers for summer feedback and targeted professional development, expand instructional rounds beyond elementary grades, and deploy coaches under a TEA‑funded LIFT grant that brought Carnegie Learning coaches to the district. Staff emphasized that walkthrough observations must be paired with actionable feedback and follow‑up coaching to change classroom practice.

Board members voiced urgency and concern about the district’s trajectory. One trustee said the preliminary results "felt like Groundhog Day," urging more bold, rapid interventions and study visits to districts with successful turnarounds. Officials acknowledged that the clock is tight: the district expects final accountability (A–F) results in August and is preparing follow‑up plans this summer.

Next steps announced to the board include teacher focus sessions this summer to surface classroom‑level root causes, monthly instructional updates to trustees, needs assessments for each campus under the LIFT grant, and continued analysis when the state’s growth files are released. Several trustees said they expect regular, transparent progress reports and to hold the leadership team accountable for implementation.

What’s next: staff said they will return to the board with more complete STAR and growth files when available, and with a clearer list of district, campus and classroom interventions to address the identified gaps.