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 Marsh RAND EDUCATION September 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 Study Context: • 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 • What strategies have districts employed to promote instructional improvement? • How are these strategies working? • What are the barriers and enablers to district instructional improvement strategies? • 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

8. Presentation Outline • Overview of Study • Austin Data Collection and Findings • Sources of Information • Context • Key Instructional Improvement Strategies • Comparison of Strategies Across Districts • Promoting Instructional Improvement: Factors to Consider

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. Presentation Outline • Overview of Study • Austin Data Collection and Findings • Comparison of Strategies Across Districts • 5 Common Areas of Focus • Future data collection & analysis • Promoting Instructional Improvement: Factors to Consider

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. Presentation Outline • Overview of Study • Austin Data Collection and Findings • Comparison of Strategies Across Districts • 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?