instructional improvement efforts of austin independent school district (2002-2003)

1

To the reader:

With support from the Hewlett Foundation, RAND is studying district-wide instructional improvement efforts in three urban districts: Austin, TX; Providence, RI; and Springfield, MA. The first year of RAND’s field work sought to understand existing instructional improvement efforts in each district. We did this through a review of district policy documents and interviews with district leaders, central office staff, principals, and community leaders. Subsequent research will expand data collection to obtain teachers' perspectives as well as examine the implementation of some of these efforts in more detail.

The following briefing was presented to Dr. Pat Forgione, Superintendent of Austin Independent School District, and Dr. Darlene Westbrook, Chief Academic Officer, on September 16, 2003. This presentation is an interim briefing aimed at providing district leaders with formative feedback from data collected by RAND during the 2002-2003 school year. The material reported here represents early findings from an ongoing research project and is intended to provide general impressions about the district’s current reform efforts. This briefing has not been formally reviewed or edited and should not be quoted, reproduced, or distributed without RAND’s permission.

We want to express our appreciation to all who consented to be interviewed for the time and insights they contributed to us.

- Julie Marsh and members of the RAND research team

2

Instructional Improvement Efforts of Austin Independent School District

(2002-2003)

Julie MarshRAND EDUCATIONSeptember 16, 2003

3

Purpose of Briefing

• Provide formative feedback– Share early findings from visits to Austin– Assist with current planning and reform efforts

• Engage in discussion – Making sense of our findings: reactions, comments,

questions– Implications for your work– Thoughts on continued research

4

Presentation Outline

• Overview of Study

• Austin Data Collection and Findings

• Comparison of Strategies Across Districts

• Promoting Instructional Improvement: Factors to Consider

5

Overview of StudyContext:

– Greater responsibilities placed on districts – Pressure from increased accountability demands

Purpose: – Examine districtwide efforts to improve instructional quality

& performance of schools– Provide evidence of what works and what doesn’t– Help districts improve their reform efforts

Timeline:– January 2003-September 2005

6

Research Questions

1) What strategies have districts employed to promote instructional improvement?

2) How are these strategies working?

3) What are the barriers and enablers to district instructional improvement strategies?

4) What led the district to undertake these strategies? What role did the IFL play in influencing district work in these areas?

7

Study Sample: 3 Urban Districts (K-12) Partnered with the Institute for Learning

Austin, TX Providence, RI Springfield, MA

Number of Students

78,490 27,159 26,594

Number of Teachers

5,375 1,779 2,514

Number of Schools

107 46 45

% Low SES 50.1 77.0 71.2

% Non-White 69.0 85.0 78.2

8



Austin Data Collection and Findings– Sources of Information– Context– Key Instructional Improvement Strategies



9

Sources of Information• Visits to AISD in February & May 2003

• Interviews (>40) with:– Principals (16: 7 ES, 5MS, 4HS)– Central office leaders (superintendent, new CAO)– Area Superintendents (4 of 5)– Central office staff (11)– IFL staff– Community (Board, Education Austin, Austin Interfaith)

• Observations of AISD principal meeting and Learning Walk

• Documents (e.g., district improvement plan)

10

AISD Context 2002-2003

• Budget crisis

• Accountability pressures

• Changing student demographics

• Leadership in the “post-silo” era

• Reorganization

11

Several Key Initiatives Used To Promote Instructional Improvement

• Instructional Planning Guides

• District assessments & data systems

• Principles of Learning & IFL

• Professional development of teachers & principals

• Blueprint Initiative

12

Instructional Planning Guides Seen as Driving Force

Majority saw value of IPGs

Strong appreciation for development & revision process

– Minority viewed IPGs as too structured

– Some feared over-emphasis on what to teach over how to teach

13

Mixed Views about Assessments & Data Systems

– Many concerned about excessive testing, burdensome system & flawed tools

Others appreciate the value of assessments and data - help identify needs & strategies- prepare students for TAKS

14

Principles of Learning Identified As Important but Less of a Focus

Seen as major districtwide initiative

Majority see value of POLs

± Evidence of use but to varying degrees

– Widespread agreement that attention & activity waned last year

– Some dissatisfaction with IFL work

15

Heavy Investment in Developing Instructional Leadership

Explicit attention to supporting principals as instructional leaders

± Mixed principal perceptions of area & districtwide meetings

– Concerns about loss of on-site instructional support

16

Blueprint Initiative Valued but Isolated

Those directly involved see immense value, particularly:• Individualized principal support• Staffing authority• Additional teacher support & incentives

– Respondents voiced several concerns:• “Us vs. Them” dynamic• Diverted time & attention • Sustainability & scale up

17




Comparison of Strategies Across Districts– 5 Common Areas of Focus– Future data collection & analysis


18

Instructional Improvement Strategies: Common Areas of Focus in 3 Districts

• Supporting the instructional leadership of principals

• Use of data for planning & instructional improvement

• Professional learning of teachers

• Strategies addressing low-performing schools

• Curricular specification

19

Future Data Collection and Analysis Intended to Explore Strategies Across Districts

• Data in Year 1 reveal districts concentrate instructional improvement efforts in similar areas, yet have differing strategies, goals, and/or implementation plans

• Additional research by RAND needed to understand district work around instructional improvement:– Focus on learning more about the initiatives implemented by

each district in 5 common areas of focus – Compare and contrast strategies across districts

20





Promoting Instructional Improvement: Factors to Consider– Constraints– Enablers– Key Issues to Consider

21

Constraints to Instructional Reform

• Principal & teacher turnover

• Time limitations

• Perceived lack of district leader support

• Communication problems

• Limited staff capacity

• Instability & uncertainty due to multiple changes & budget crisis

22

Enablers of Instructional Reform

• Many changes at once force linkages & coherence

• Broadened participation promotes buy-in & implementation

• Availability of on-site support & modeling

• Small groups facilitate principal dialogue & collaboration

23

Moving Forward: Key Issues to Consider

• Communicating strong messages about the importance and prioritization of key initiatives– Challenge: getting buy-in versus compliance

• Leveraging the Blueprint Initiative – Are there lessons and learning to be shared? If so, how?

– If other schools come on board, what are the implications for capacity?

– How do you plan to sustain the work after the 3 years?

• Integrating POLs into other efforts vs. maintaining a separate focus

24

Moving Forward: Key Issues to Consider (cont.)

• Monitoring the impact of reorganization on principals– Do principals feel safe to discuss their issues? – Are groups small enough to enable meaningful conversation? – Are vertical team conversations happening?

• Providing differentiated training and support– How do you continually challenge veterans while bringing novices up

to speed?

• Sustaining on-site instructional assistance– Are there ways to reallocate time, roles, or other resources?