Implementing High School Reform with Fidelity

1. Princeton University Princeton, New Jersey Reforming High Schools: Tools to Help Promote Change Implementing High School Reform with Fidelity Dr. Pascal D. Forgione, Jr. Superintendent Austin Independent School District Superintendent@austinisd.org www.austinisd.org April 24, 2009

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. The Austin Redesign Process* I Securing a commitment for change II Creating a shared vision for change III Engaging all stakeholders and deepening understanding IV Developing a portfolio of schools through an RFD process V Coaching to support redesign VI Completing RFD review process VII 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. AISD Needs Data and Processes to Monitor Progress and Measure the Effectiveness of the System Framework for AISD Dashboard Are we achieving our objectives? Are we making adequate progress? Are we executing our plan with high levels of fidelity and quality? Outcomes or Lagging Indicators Leading Indicators Execution Indicators Key Supporting Elements • Effective Project Management • Regular Review Processes • Training & Change Management • Leadership and “Follow-through” 12

13. Practical Applications:Data from Boardroom to Classroom AISD Framework Goal = Data Aligned at All Levels • 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 process High Level Overview Board District Leaders Principals Initiative Managers Teachers/Advisors Student Level Detail 13

14. 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

15. Austin ISD Reform Initiatives Landscape Major Redesign Initiatives Akins Anderson Austin Bowie Crockett LBJ Eastside Lanier McCallum Reagan Travis X X X X X X X X Student Advisory* X X X First Things First (FTF) X X X Small Learning Communities X X New Tech High X X X X X X X X X X X Professional Learning Communities Math Instructional Improvement X X X X X X X X X X X (UT Dana Center) WestSide Schools X X X X X (Great Schools Workshop) English Language Learners X Demonstration Schools (WestEd) (also International High School) High Schools That Work (SREB) X with SLCs & New Tech High College & Career Programs AP Strategies - X** X X X X** X** X** X X X** X** Laying the Foundation X X X Senior internship X X X X X X X X X X X Project Advance Instructional Programs X X X X X X Disciplinary Literacy (Prof Dev) * LASA and International High School not shown, but participating in Advisory ** Financial Incentive AP Instructors & Students for Passing Test X X X X Asia Society Global Studies X X X X 15

16. Completed In Progress Not Completed District Level Execution Indicators:Advisory Implementation Status Across Campuses ESR Campuses FTF Campuses Success Metrics A B C D E F G H I J K L On Track to Launch Pre-Launch Quality 16

17. Completed Not Completed Scale: 5 – Advanced Implementation 1 – Beginning Implementation Campus Level Execution Indicators:Advisory Implementation Status Using Quality Indicators School A School A Overall 17 Overall

18. 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

19. Appendix A:Basic Demographic and Statistical Data: Austin ISD 19

20. Table 1: AISD Basic Data, 2007-2008 Our Students Our Students* Our Budget Our Employees Tax Rate = $1.163/$100 valuation (the lowest of any school district in Central Texas) Taxable Value = $50,570,268,178 Bonded Debt = $606,781,532 Recapture (Chapter 41) Payment = $109,279.634 Net Operational Budget (after Recapture)= $655,379,348 Net Operational Expenditure per Student = $7,882 AISD is the third-largest employer in the MSA. 20 *Data by Austin ISD Budget Department as of 11/7/07

21. Table 2: Austin ISD’s Changing Student Demographics 1997-19212198 to 2007-2008 Source: Texas Education Agency, Academic Excellence Indicator System District Reports 2007-2008 preliminary data by Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) as of 11/6/2007 21

22. Appendix B:Academic and Accountability Information: Austin ISD 22

23. Table 3: Preliminary Analysis of Improvement 2003 to 2008 23

24. Table 3: Preliminary Analysis of Improvement 2003 to 2008 (continued) 24

25. Table 4: Importance of Accurate Reporting 2007 NAEP Grade 4 and 8 Mathematics Performance for Trial Urban District Assessment 25

26. Table 5: Encouraging Findings for Austin 26

27. 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 27

28. 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, Math 101902 Aldine Acceptable Missed AYP Math, Grad Rate 188901 Amarillo Acceptable AU Met 227901 Austin Acceptable Met 123910 Beaumont Acceptable AU Missed AYP Reading, Grad Rate 031901 Brownsville Acceptable Missed AYP Reading, Math, Grad Rate 178904 Corpus Christi Acceptable Missed AYP Reading, Math 101907 Cypress‐Fairbanks Recognized Met 057905 Dallas Acceptable AU Missed AYP Reading, Grad Rate 068901 Ector County Acceptable AU Missed AYP Reading, Math, Grad Rate 071902 El Paso Acceptable Missed AYP Reading, Math 220905 Fort Worth Acceptable AU Missed AYP Reading, Math 057909 Garland Acceptable Met 101912 Houston Acceptable AU Missed AYP Reading, Grad Rate 220916 Hurst‐Euless‐Bedford Recognized Met 057912 Irving Acceptable Met 101914 Katy Recognized Met 152901 Lubbock Acceptable AU Missed AYP Math 108906 McAllen Acceptable Missed AYP Reading 165901 Midland Acceptable AU Met 015910 North East Recognized Met 015915 Northside Recognized Acceptable Met 108909 Pharr‐San Juan‐Alamo Acceptable Missed AYP Reading, Grad Rate 057916 Richardson Recognized Met 246909 Round Rock Acceptable AU Met 226903 San Angelo Acceptable AU Met 015907 San Antonio Acceptable AU Missed AYP Reading, Math, Grad Rate 101920 Spring Branch Acceptable Met 212905 Tyler Acceptable Missed AYP Reading, Math 240903 United Acceptable Missed AYP Reading, Math 161914 Waco Acceptable Missed AYP Reading, Math, Grad Rate 243905 Wichita Falls ‐ ? Acceptable Met *Measures missed are performance measures (not participation rates). 28