Implementing High School Reform with Fidelity

Dr. Pascal D. Forgione, Jr.Superintendent

Austin Independent School DistrictSuperintendent@austinisd.org

www.austinisd.org

Princeton UniversityPrinceton, New Jersey

Reforming High Schools: Tools to Help Promote Change

April 24, 2009

A Working Definition of Leadership• Leadership is the art of getting things done; it is

about execution, especially fidelity of implementation

• Leadership is about creating future, not defending status quo

• Leadership is context driven and constrained

2

Setting a Context: A System in Crisis in 1999

• Austin ISD was rated unacceptable for poor data quality by TEA.

• District was under indictment for manipulating dropout and test data.

• Bonding companies placed Austin ISD on the “negative watch.”

• Public confidence and staff morale was at its lowest point.

•Seventh Austin ISD Superintendent in the 1990s.

3

Leadership in Context

• For me, there were the 1999 Austin realities.• In August 1999, I set three priorities for my new

administration:– Better data– Better collaboration– Better student achievement

4

Setting a Context: Leadership for Change

• AISD’s Theory of Action:• Enhanced achievement for all students through

improvements in teaching and learning; and• Adoption of the Principles of Learning.

• Three stages of reform in Austin ISD over a decade:

• Crisis leadership strategies;• Managed instruction strategies; and• Now, system capacity building strategies.

• Data have played an essential but different role in each reform stage.

5

Setting a Context: AISD’s Changing Demographics

As profiled in Appendix A for School Year 2007-08:•Austin is a large and complex urban school district with:

– 82,541 students, with 70.2% children of color, 60.7% economically disadvantaged and 28.2% limited English proficient; and

– 113 campuses, 5,925 classroom teachers, 11,700 employees and an $864 million annual budget.

•Austin has experienced dramatic changes in student demographics over the past decade with:

– 21% increase in economically disadvantaged students (from 50.2% to 60.7%);

– 124% increase in limited English proficient students (from 12.6% to 28.2%);

– Tripled the number of recent immigrant students; and– One in four students attend more than one school each

year. 6

Setting a Context: AISD’s Trajectory of Academic Progress

As profiled in Appendix B, Austin has shown: • Strong Improvements by all student groups on the

TAKS* tests from 2003 to 2008;• Substantial progress in closing the achievement

gaps among student groups over this period;• Top performance among urban districts on the

NAEP/TUDA** assessments in 2005 and 2007, scoring at or above the national and international averages; and

• A successful record in meeting state and federal (AYP) accountability standards for the past six years.

* Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) Tests**National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)/Trial Urban District Assessment

(TUDA)

7

Cuban Assessment

• Professor Larry Cuban’s assessment of my success over the past decade: Forgione was “the right person at the right time for Austin.”

* School Reform in Austin, Texas: 1954-2008 by Professor Larry Cuban, Stanford University, September, 2008.

**“Commentary: The Turnstile Superintendency? How Some Urban School Leaders Have Defied the Odds and Thrived” by Larry Cuban, Education Week, August 27, 2008.

8

The Austin Redesign Process*

I Securing a commitment for changeII Creating a shared vision for changeIII Engaging all stakeholders and deepening understandingIV Developing a portfolio of schools through an RFD

processV Coaching to support redesignVI Completing RFD review processVII Providing support for Strategic Planning VIII Examining the role of the central office in high school

redesign

* AISD and the School Redesign Network at Stanford University: A Partnership for Successful School Redesign by Raymond Pecheone et al., 2006 (see pages 7 and 27-29).

9

Summary of the Redesign Process

• Effective redesign of secondary schools requires a commitment for change from the school board, senior and campus leadership of the district, and all stakeholders in the community.

• A shared vision for change is necessary to effectively guide wall-to-wall high school redesign and answers the question for the public of “why change.”

• Building a deep understanding and authentically engaging all stakeholders in the need for change is vital in creating momentum and support for redesigning secondary schools.

• Creating multiple learning pathways is vital and can be achieved by providing educational choices for students and families through the development of schools that are purposefully designed to respect local context and individual student needs.

10

Summary of the Redesign Process

• Effective redesign requires coaching and technical assistance that focuses on the essential elements of personalization, collaboration, and academic rigor.

• High School Design Plans are constructed to meet the unique needs of each campus. Creating an internal and external review process to fine-tune plans ensures quality of implementation and fidelity to redesign guiding principles.

• Technical assistance and support activities move from design and planning to preparing for implementation and identifying priorities for high school redesign.

• Transforming the central office into a more service-oriented system supports a portfolio of schools. SRN’s 10 Challenges provide key senior central office staff from all departments with a framework to examine.

11

AISD Needs Data and Processes to Monitor Progress and Measure the Effectiveness of the System

Outcomes or Lagging Indicators

Outcomes or Lagging Indicators Execution IndicatorsExecution IndicatorsLeading IndicatorsLeading Indicators

Framework for AISD DashboardFramework for AISD Dashboard

Are we achieving our objectives?

Are we achieving our objectives?

Are we making adequate progress?

Are we making adequate progress?

Are we executing our plan with high levels of fidelity

and quality?

Are we executing our plan with high levels of fidelity

and quality?

Key Supporting Elements• Effective Project Management• Regular Review Processes • Training & Change

Management• Leadership and “Follow-

through”

12

Practical Applications:Data from Boardroom to Classroom

Board

District Leaders

Principals

Initiative Managers

Goal = Data Aligned at All Levels

High Level Overview

Student Level Detail

Teachers/Advisors

AISD Framework

New perspective on familiar data

Puts faces to the data

Integrated into district work

District wide application, not just high schools

Allows for mid-course corrections, not just end of year outcomes

Evolutionary process13

Austin ISD High School Reform

• The 4 R’s of Reform:– Rigor– Relationships– Relevance– Results

• Formulation of a strategy to create a portfolio of high schools in AISD, including moving to scale with all eleven comprehensive high schools and developing innovative small schools to expand choice and district charters in AISD.

14

Austin ISD Reform Initiatives Landscape

Major Redesign Initiatives Akins Anderson Austin Bowie Crockett LBJ Eastside Lanier McCallum Reagan Travis

Student Advisory*X X X X X X X X

First Things First (FTF) X X X

Small Learning Communities X X X

New Tech High X X

Professional Learning Communities X X X X X X X X X X X

Math Instructional Improvement(UT Dana Center)

X X X X X X X X X X X

WestSide Schools(Great Schools Workshop)

X X X X X

English Language Learners Demonstration Schools (WestEd)(also International High School)

X

High Schools That Work (SREB)with SLCs & New Tech High

X

College & Career Programs AP Strategies - Laying the Foundation X** X X X X** X** X** X X X** X**

Senior internship X X X

Project Advance X X X X X X X X X X X

Instructional Programs

Disciplinary Literacy (Prof Dev) X X X X X X

* LASA and International High School not shown, but participating in Advisory ** Financial Incentive AP Instructors & Students for Passing Test

X X X

X

X X

X X

Asia Society Global Studies

15

District Level Execution Indicators:Advisory Implementation Status Across Campuses

SLC Leadership and Advisors Co-chairs Selected

Action PlanSubmitted and Visions, Goals, and Expectations Have Been Developed

Advisory Curriculum and Materials and Resources Prepared for Implementation

Students Assigned to Advisory Groups and Advisory Scheduled into the School Day

Annual PD Plan Proposal Developed and Training Sessions Begun

Advisors Provided with Computer Access to Updated Student Data and Process Defined for Identifying Those in Need of Support

Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

3 3.3 3.8 3.7 - 4 1 3 3.6 1.7 1.7 1.7

AA BB CC DD E E FF GG II JJ KK LLHH

FTF Campuses

Not Completed

In Progress

Completed

ESR Campuses

On Track to Launch

On Track to Launch

Pre-Launch Quality

Pre-Launch Quality

Success MetricsSuccess Metrics

16

Advisors teach 5 lessons from Advisory curriculum

Advisors have had initial one on one meeting with students

Advisors have had initial talk with parents/families

Advisors look at student data once every 3 weeks to monitor school performance

Advisors have initial collaborative meeting during common planning time

Advisors discuss data with studentsOverallOverall

Campus Level Execution Indicators:Advisory Implementation Status Using Quality

Indicators

School A

School A

Not Completed

Completed

Advisory curriculum is engaging

3.5

Advisory curriculum is aligned with goals

4.5

Advisory curriculum is personalized and relationship-centric

4

Advisors use data effectively and have a process for flagging students and intervening when necessary

3

Advisees feel that advisors are their advocates

4

Students form a bond with advisors

4

Students form a bond with other advisees

3.5

Advisors feel accountable

2

3.5

OverallOverall

1 – Beginning Implementation

5 – Advanced ImplementationScale:School

ASchool

A

17

Summary

• In its simplest concept, Performance Management in AISD means Tools for Teaching Excellence.

• Performance Management in public education is essential for achieving our universal and shared goal of excellence and equity for all students.

• The District has a critical role in fostering innovative uses and practices of evidence and decision making at the district and campus levels.*

* Pamela A. Moss, Editor, Evidence and Decision Making, the 106th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (NSSE), Part I, Malden, Massachusetts, 2007.

18

Appendix A:Basic Demographic and Statistical

Data: Austin ISD

19

Table 1: AISD Basic Data, 2007-2008

African American 9985 12.1%Asian 2678 3.24%Hispanic 47953 58.1%Native American 186 0.23%White 21739 26.34%TOTAL 82541 100.00%

Our Students

Elementary Schools 78Middle Schools 17High Schools 12Special Campuses 6TOTAL 113

Teachers 5,925Administrators 449Other Professionals 854Classified 4,472

TOTAL 11,700

Operations* 764,658,82Food Service 32,965,807Debt Service 66,711,335TOTAL 864,336,124

Our EmployeesOur Budget

Our Students*

AISD is the third-largest employer in the MSA.

Tax Rate = $1.163/$100 valuation (the lowest of any school district in Central Texas)Taxable Value = $50,570,268,178Bonded Debt = $606,781,532

Recapture (Chapter 41) Payment = $109,279.634

Net Operational Budget (after Recapture) = $655,379,348Net Operational Expenditure per Student = $7,882

*Data by Austin ISD Budget Department as of 11/7/07

20

Table 2: Austin ISD’s Changing Student Demographics

1997-19212198 to 2007-2008

1997-1998 2002-2003 2007-2008

African American 17.8% 14.4% 12.1%

Hispanic 42.9% 51.5% 58.1%

White 36.7% 31.2% 26.34%

Other 2.6% 3.0% 3.47%

Economically Disadvantaged

50.2% 53% 60.7%

Limited English Proficient

12.6% 20.7% 28.2%

Total Enrolled 76,606 78,155 82,541

Source: Texas Education Agency, Academic Excellence Indicator System District Reports2007-2008 preliminary data by Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) as of 11/6/2007 21

Appendix B:Academic and Accountability

Information: Austin ISD

22

Table 3: Preliminary Analysis of Improvement 2003 to 2008

  2003 2007 2008* Imp. '07-08 Imp. '03-08Percent of Students Meeting Standard

Reading/Language Arts PerformanceAll Students 67% 83% 86% +3 +19African-American 53% 75% 79% +4 +26Hispanic 56% 77% 81% +4 +25White 87% 96% 97% +1 +10Economically Disadvantaged 53% 74% 79% +5 +26

Change in Gap Percentage Point Gap Change in GapWhite to African American 34 21 18 -3 -16White to Hispanic 31 19 16 -3 -15               Mathematics PerformanceAll Students 54% 71% 76% +5 +22African-American 33% 53% 60% +7 +27Hispanic 41% 62% 69% +7 +28White 78% 90% 93% +3 +15Economically Disadvantaged 37% 59% 66% +7 +29

Change in Gap Percentage Point Gap Change in GapWhite to African American 45 37 33 -4 -12White to Hispanic 37 28 24 -4 -13               Writing PerformanceAll Students 76% 89% 88% -1 +12African-American 63% 83% 81% -2 +18Hispanic 67% 86% 85% -1 +18White 92% 97% 96% -1 +4Economically Disadvantaged 64% 84% 83% -1 +19

Change in Gap Percentage Point Gap Change in GapWhite to African American 29 14 15 +1 -14White to Hispanic 25 11 11 0 -14

23

Table 3: Preliminary Analysis of Improvement 2003 to 2008 (continued)

  2003 2007 2008* Imp. '07-08 Imp. '03-08

Science Performance

All Students 41% 62% 70% +8 +29

African-American 18% 43% 55% +12 +37

Hispanic 23% 47% 58% +11 +35

White 68% 88% 91% +3 +23

Economically Disadvantaged 18% 43% 54% +11 +36

Change in Gap Percentage Point Gap Change in Gap

White to African American 50 45 36 -9 -14

White to Hispanic 45 41 33 -8 -12

               

Social Studies Performance

All Students 73% 82% 88% +6 +15

African-American 59% 70% 80% +10 +21

Hispanic 59% 74% 82% +8 +23

White 90% 96% 97% +1 +7

Economically Disadvantaged 54% 70% 79% +9 +25

Change in Gap Percentage Point Gap Change in Gap

White to African American 31 26 17 -9 -14

White to Hispanic 31 22 15 -7 -16

               

* All data calculated at the 2008 standards and represent accountability subset; 2008 data are estimated by AISD. Sources: AEIS; MIS; TAKS-Return.

24

Table 4: Importance of Accurate Reporting

2007 NAEP Grade 4 and 8 Mathematics Performance for Trial Urban District Assessment

25

Table 5: Encouraging Findings for Austin

26

Table 6: Encouraging Findings for Austin (cont.)

• Austin at both Grades 4 and 8 in Math shows a strong level of performance– Grade 4: Austin equals US percentage and above TIMSS and OECD percentages; and– Grade 8: Austin is above US and TIMSS percentages and equal to OECD percentage

Austin

% at or above

Proficient

U.S.

% at or above

Proficient

TIMSS Internat.

% at or above

Proficient

OECD

% at or above

Proficient

Gr. 4 40 39 27 30

Gr. 8 34 31 21 3327

Table 7: Comparison of Preliminary State Ratings with Preliminary AYP Status

CDC # District Name Rating 2008 Completion 2008 PRELIMINARY AYP Areas Missed* Rate Impact AYP Status

221901 Abilene Acceptable Missed AYP Reading, Math101902 Aldine Acceptable Missed AYP Math, Grad Rate188901 Amarillo Acceptable AU Met227901 Austin Acceptable Met123910 Beaumont Acceptable AU Missed AYP Reading, Grad Rate031901 Brownsville Acceptable Missed AYP Reading, Math, Grad Rate178904 Corpus Christi Acceptable Missed AYP Reading, Math101907 Cypress‐Fairbanks Recognized Met057905 Dallas Acceptable AU Missed AYP Reading, Grad Rate068901 Ector County Acceptable AU Missed AYP Reading, Math, Grad Rate071902 El Paso Acceptable Missed AYP Reading, Math220905 Fort Worth Acceptable AU Missed AYP Reading, Math057909 Garland Acceptable Met101912 Houston Acceptable AU Missed AYP Reading, Grad Rate220916 Hurst‐Euless‐Bedford Recognized Met057912 Irving Acceptable Met101914 Katy Recognized Met152901 Lubbock Acceptable AU Missed AYP Math108906 McAllen Acceptable Missed AYP Reading165901 Midland Acceptable AU Met015910 North East Recognized Met015915 Northside Recognized Acceptable Met108909 Pharr‐San Juan‐Alamo Acceptable Missed AYP Reading, Grad Rate057916 Richardson Recognized Met246909 Round Rock Acceptable AU Met226903 San Angelo Acceptable AU Met015907 San Antonio Acceptable AU Missed AYP Reading, Math, Grad Rate101920 Spring Branch Acceptable Met212905 Tyler Acceptable Missed AYP Reading, Math240903 United Acceptable Missed AYP Reading, Math161914 Waco Acceptable Missed AYP Reading, Math, Grad Rate243905 Wichita Falls ‐ ? Acceptable Met

*Measures missed are performance measures (not participation rates).

28