And Now the Successes Begin

After a Spring and early Summer where Bobby J Rigues (Aledo trustee and architect of the Make Education a Priority grassroots movement) and I had presented at several sessions attended by school board trustees from around the state, it’s now time to acknowledge and begin to celebrate some of the many successes we have heard.  And there are many!  Congratulations to districts across the state for embracing the spirit and intent of HB 5, efforts that will position local school boards very well when the 84^th Legislature convenes in January.  Some districts did not move forward as the legislation (and our presentations!) might have hoped; most, however, took steps that will bear fruit for their students.

There are several ways to look at success in implementing HB 5, beginning with the approach to offering endorsements, specifically to the number of endorsements that a particular district chooses to offer.  In our early discussions with superintendents and administrators, we frequently heard, and this was especially true at smaller districts, that they might be able to offer only the Multidisciplinary endorsement in year one.  But as they stepped back and looked at the opportunity and examined their district’s curriculum, many found that they could offer at least one or two more and, in many cases, offer all five endorsements.  What an accomplishment!

For example, in my conversation with a superintendent in a central Texas 2A district, he was somewhat optimistic that he would be able to offer three endorsements.  As implementation unfolded and his district pursued the opportunities found in HB 5, they found ways to create partnerships that would expand their ability to offer an endorsement. 

Partnerships were certainly at the heart of HB 5, as shared with us by Rep. Jimmie Don Aycock, Chairman of the House Education Committee.  In fact, the district referenced above established partnerships at multiple levels, including the business community in their area, neighboring school districts, and local colleges.

Those attending our sessions heard us say that a district should be able to offer three endorsements without doing anything other than realigning curriculum, that according to TEA.  It would certainly appear that districts found that to be the case … and more!

While we are talking about successes, it is once again important to acknowledge the role that counselors have played in working with incoming 9^th graders as they sought to select an endorsement.  For the most part, we have heard that the process of doing so has gone fairly smoothly; that is absolutely a credit to the efforts of the counselors.  And most districts did this without adding counselors to their staff if we normalize staffing based on enrollment.  That is truly a credit to the commitment of the counselors, our new education "superheroes", to ensuring the success of this aspect of HB 5.

So let’s take time (but not too much!) to celebrate the successes being achieved through the implementation of HB 5.  Students and those that we serve as trustees of our local districts are all winners in this effort.  

HB 5 and the New Education "Superheroes"

The passage of House Bill 5 in the 83rd Legislative Session created new opportunities for students who many considered to be underserved, addressed concerns raised by parents and educators alike relating to curriculum design and assessment, and established requirements for community and student engagement.  Having previously documented some of the most significant changes, I won't belabor the point or discussion about the many benefits of this critical legislation. 

So with all of the good emanating from passage of this bill, what are some of the pitfalls?  Over the next couple of blogs, I'll provide perspectives gained through conversations with a number of administrators and fellow trustees across the State of Texas.  The first will focus on what we might call the new Education Superheroes, the counselors in our middle and high schools.

The advent of HB5 and introduction of the concept of an endorsement opened up new career pursuit opportunities for a large number of students in the state. Chairman Jimmie Don Aycock, Chairman of the House Education Committee, told me that he believed that as many as 40% of the 5.1 M public education students will benefit from having more career options, specifically those in the Career and Technical Education (CATE) arena.  The shift from a one-size-fits-all approach under the former 4X4 program, to one focused on individual choice tied to endorsement selection, is certainly a positive step for these students.

But this implementation of an endorsement-based approach does not come without challenges.  The most notable of these is how endorsement choices and counseling have significantly impacted the role of the counselor.  Many concluded that the main impact would be on the high school counselor as they work with incoming ninth graders.  The reality, however, is that the impact is felt equally, and perhaps even more so, at the middle school level.

The middle school counselor has a clear responsibility to start a communication process with students and parents as early as seventh grade.  What seems to be a fairly simple process of articulating endorsements offered by a district is much more than that.  Students need to understand their options and the need to begin thinking about where their interests lie.  And the role of the middle school counselor doesn't stop there.  They also have a responsibility to work with their peers at the high school level to coordinate these communications.

So when it's all said and done, and after the dust of selecting endorsements has settled, make sure that you give a hug and a thank you to the counselors that so capably serve the needs and interests of public education students across the State.  They truly are Superheroes to all of us!

The Real Value in HB 5

Well, while certainly not the only real value in HB 5, much is being written today about the positive impact of encouraging students to pursue career and technology education (CATE) options now afforded them.  As noted in prior blogs, one of the main considerations behind the initial discussions that ultimately led to drafting and passing this important piece of legislation was the feeling among many educators that the requirements pre-HB 5 limited opportunities for students, or at least that they failed to align opportunity with student interest.

I happened to be reading my “local” newspaper (Ft. Worth Star-Telegram) earlier today and read a cover story (More high school grads certified and ready to work) that discussed the opportunities for high school students to pursue career and technical education opportunities.  The good news is that articles such as this one are no longer isolated examples of how public education has changed in terms of importance and public awareness.  And that is tremendous exposure for all involved in public education in the State of Texas.

It’s certainly possible to access the on-line version of this article (yes, the Star Telegram today is still free to access) by going to www.star-telegram.com, but this exposure is important enough that I wanted to highlight some of the key points made in this article.  One of the comments is that the number of industry licenses in Birdville ISD earned through their technology center increased from 344 in 2009 to 1,890 in the current school year.  And that number will continue to grow as technology evolves. 

In the Hurst-Euless-Bedford district, voters supported a 2011 bond program that included funding for a new Technical Education Academy to replace the former Technical Education Center.  Courses offered will include animation, architecture, automotive technology, engineering and culinary arts.  In Mansfield ISD, students now have an opportunity to choose from 15 different tracks, including EMT certification and food safety and sanitation management.  And the Keller district is weighing a potential opportunity to transform a prior intermediate school into a career and technical education center.

Truly, these represent great opportunities for students!

And these successes are not limited to large school districts such as Birdville, Mansfield and Keller ISD’s.  In a recent conversation that I had with a 2-A district superintendent in central Texas, he highlighted career and technology options now available through partnering with other districts.  Specifically, a neighboring district offered the opportunity for students to graduate and immediately be in a position to work in manufacturing jobs.  So what’s critical here is that the CATE options can be delivered either directly by the district or through partnerships with other districts or local businesses.  All great options, all focused on student achievement and opportunity!

So going back to an earlier blog and paraphrasing somewhat, “How are you doing?”  House Bill 5 was absolutely passed to address many shortcomings of the prior 4X4 system that provided limited flexibility for as many as 30-40% of the students in Texas whose interests do not align with that curriculum.  It’s now up to individual districts and boards of trustees to make decisions that positively impact the students in their districts.  It’s not just an opportunity; it’s a requirement that we, as trustees, have in working with students, parents, businesses, and the communities at large.  As I’ve said before, the students in your district deserve nothing less!

“Are We There Yet?” – A Story of One Journey

Are we there yet?  At some point in our lives, every one of us has either posed the question to someone else, or had this question posed to us.  So how did we typically answer the question if one of our children asked us?  Well, we might have said, “We’re almost there” (hoping to buy time), or “If you ask me that again, …” (not certain what we hope to achieve with that one), or my personal favorite from a co-worker of mine.  When his child asked if they were almost to Grandma’s house, his response was, “Yes, we are, but Grandma has a really long driveway.”

Since we have been writing about the ramifications of House Bill 5, it’s fair to ask, “are we there yet?”  In some cases, trustees tell us that they are pleased with the progress being made; others are uncertain about where “there” even is.  It’s been our hope, therefore, that posting this blog helps define “there”.  As trustees, most of us have now had the opportunity to discuss, debate and perhaps even curse the requirements imposed by HB 5 relating to Curriculum and Community and Student Engagement.

But I’d like to share with you the journey of how one district achieved far more than what they thought they would be able to do.  I recently had the opportunity to talk with the superintendent of a 2-A district in Central Texas.  When I first spoke with him three months ago, my intent was to gain insights into how a district of his size would address the Curriculum mandates relating to offering endorsements to students in his district.  Candidly, he had doubts during our initial discussion about whether they would be able to offer any endorsement other than the state-mandated Multidisciplinary endorsement.  Oh, how times have changed!

In my recent conversation with him, I could hear the excitement and enthusiasm in his voice as he told me that, as a result of "collaborative partnerships" (his words) with businesses and neighboring districts, it now looked like his district would be able to offer all five of the endorsements defined under HB 5.  And what is even more impressive is the manner in how the district approached the reporting of metrics and criteria.  In fact, while HB 5 defined the eight areas to be evaluated, his district felt it important to add a ninth, Safety and Security.  Talk about understanding and responding to the needs of students and community members in his district!

He explained to me how the district was going to be able to move from the originally anticipated single endorsement to likely being able to offer all five.  Quite simply, it was through establishing relationships with neighboring districts that were willing to share programs and resources so that his students could find content relevant to their specific interests.  Working with his board, he also spent time benchmarking against other districts in the county, not to evaluate his district’s performance against theirs, but to draw on the “best of the best”, again to the benefit of his students.

So, if this 2-A district can do it, why can’t we all?  HB 5 contained little in the way of implementation details and requirements, other than the requirement to report campus level ratings by August 8.  Rather than wait for TEA to tell them what to do and how to derive these ratings, this district took it upon themselves to think first about their students and how to make their high school curriculum more relevant.  Not satisfied with the minimum graduation program requirements defined under HB 5, they adopted a local standard requiring 24 credits for graduation.

I am certain that the journey undertaken by districts across the state has resulted in similar success stories, and my hat is off to those who have viewed HB 5 as the opportunity that it is.  And while we may not yet be to Grandma’s house, this story is about our journey, not the destination.  We are certainly a long way up the driveway!

House Bill 5, Toyota, and the Mayor of Dallas

So what do the three of these have in common?  Community engagement lies at the core of this trifecta, some positive, some not so much.  Most are aware that the Mayor of Dallas has proposed that Dallas ISD become a home rule district, an action that would remove the board of trustees and change the manner in which DISD is governed.  Thankfully, this has met with strong opposition from a wide array of groups but that is not the premise of this blog.

Unfortunately, the Mayor has continued his public criticism of DISD by suggesting that part of Toyota’s decision to relocate their US headquarters from Torrance, CA to Plano, TX was based on concerns about the quality of education provided by DISD.  Toyota certainly weighed a number of factors when making a decision to relocate their headquarters and to bring 4000 jobs to the Metroplex; quality of education no doubt was one of them.  But for the Mayor to single out DISD is patently unfair to the staff and students of DISD.  Like any district, DISD has issues but it is unfair to blame Toyota’s decision on DISD.  Perhaps the Mayor would be better served by engaging the district in discussions about how to address what he perceives to be weaknesses in DISD.

And that’s where the reference to HB 5 comes in.  Under the Community and Student Engagement part of HB 5, communities and districts are required to work closely with each other to set metrics for performance in a number of areas, and to then define corrective action plans where those metrics are not being attained.  To suggest that “fostering economic development” is one of those attributes is not within the scope of HB 5.  However, as a whole, focusing on the eight attributes defined in HB 5 will help tell the story of performance in a district and how it is working to improve, putting all parties in a better position to leverage those successes to the benefit of the entire community.  Dallas ISD is no different than the rest of our districts in that regard and, given cooperation between public officials and the district, stands a far better chance of addressing shortcomings than continually being subjected to criticism by the Mayor.

This, to me, seems to be a golden opportunity for the City administration and the District administration to sit down and discuss their respective needs.  To succeed, the district needs the support of the Mayor and the citizens of Dallas in defining not just what the State requires relative to public education, but what the Mayor and City want to see from the District.  There are no winners when it comes to the Mayor’s continued criticism of DISD; it’s time for all parties to embrace the spirit of House Bill 5 and to come together to address the challenges and opportunities in educating DISD students.  These students deserve the opportunity to succeed; a more cooperative effort will help them do so.

HB 5 – Community and Student Engagement - The Process Defined

As we continue to move toward an August 8 reporting date for Community and Student Engagement, I wanted to pause and reflect on the process and progress we have made in our district.  This has been a significant undertaking to get to where we are today, a process involving a district committee, campus leadership and, as you would expect, community members.  Through this process, our district has utilized a number of third party resources, including our Region ESC (Region 11) and input from other districts that had already defined a set of questions to use as part of their evaluation process.

So, with the caveat that this is simply our district's view and approach, let me briefly describe the process that got us to where we are.  Remember … local control gives us the flexibility to define our own approach and how we will satisfy the requirements of HB 5.

We began by identifying an existing committee, our District Advisory Committee (DAC).  We initially shared with committee members the intent and objectives of House Bill 5, and emphasized the importance of completing a self-assessment based on to-be-defined criteria.  As noted above, there are a number of existing resources we identified, including a spreadsheet and set of questions already defined by the Region 11 ESC.  We also gathered sets of questions adopted by other districts in their evaluation process.  From those, we then took the “best of the best” and added to that list questions specific to our district; again, these additional questions were developed by community members, not the district Administration.

Having completed the initial process of developing a set of questions for each of the eight elements, we have now shared that list (four questions per element) with campus leadership and with our site based decision making teams; this effort was initiated the week of April 4.  Our expectation now is that these teams will complete their evaluation efforts and submit to Administration no later than May 8.  After that, Administration will then aggregate the evaluation feedback and share with the DAC in mid-May.  Assuming that the DAC will then approve the evaluations submitted for each campus, we will be in a position to submit our district’s self-evaluation to TEA, complying with both the intent and time frames defined by HB 5.

This also begs the question of the value of this process.  Most districts already have a process in place to gather and evaluate community input; for those districts, this is largely a way of formalizing a process that is then applied consistently across all districts.  For others, i.e., those who do not have a well-defined process, the Community and Student Engagement element of House Bill 5 provides a framework for developing a process and ensuring community involvement.  Either way, this legislation is a reinforcement of the need for districts to solicit input from, and then act upon the wishes of, the community.

Our hope in providing a series of blogs highlighting the Community and Student Engagement element of House Bill 5 is that we have provided a framework to help guide you through the maze of implementation.  The information presented is an outgrowth of a series of presentations by Bobby Rigues, Aledo ISD trustee and the architect of Make Education a Priority, and myself.  Content for these was developed through a series of discussions with a number of different resources, including Rep. Jimmie Don Aycock, Chairman of the House Education Committee (and primary sponsor of HB 5), H D Chambers, Superintendent – Alief ISD (who worked closely with Rep. Aycock), representative districts across the State, and TASB Governmental Relations.  We are sincerely grateful for their guidance and support.

Community Engagement Metrics – “How’m I doin’?”

Ed Koch, former mayor of New York City, famously asked “How’m I doin’?”  While we may quiver at the poor grammar structure, the reality is that this is a very real and relevant question for all of us.  It’s getting closer to the time where we, as trustees, have the responsibility to not only pose the question but to make certain that we have a response from our communities, and to report our performance ratings to TEA; ratings are due August 8 of each year.  Regardless of how you choose to address the opportunity to enlist the support of your community, there is relatively little time to form the committee, define the metrics and then evaluate by campus and the district overall how well you’re “doin'”.

So in the absence of any specific guidance on how to approach this task, what are you doing within your district?  Perhaps the best resource for you to call on is your Region Education Service Center.  As mentioned previously, most have either defined a tool that you can use, or have at least provided guidelines on the types of questions to ask surrounding each of the eight measured areas.  There is no predefined guideline for how many criteria need to be evaluated for each of the eight, but you certainly want something that gives you a community perspective of what is important to them.  Of course, you need to be a part of the discussion.  Remember that there is also a compliance question, kind of a “pass/fail” on how well you followed the spirit and intent of HB5.

In the April 4 edition of the Legislative Report provided by TASB Governmental Relations, Dax Gonzalez included the following update.  By the way, if you are not already an SBAN (School Board Advisory Network) subscriber, you should be!  Send a request to Dax at dax.gonzalez@tasb.org or visit gr.tasb.org.

TEA Posts HB 5 Community Engagement Rule

TEA has posted a proposed rule regarding the community and student engagement accountability portion of House Bill 5. The proposed rule would establish procedures for each school district to report performance ratings that the district has assigned to itself and to each of its campuses for the new community and student engagement indicators. The official comment period began April 4 and ends May 5, 2014. Any comments must be submitted to TEA at rules@tea.state.tx.us.

What does this mean to you?  Our sense is that the TEA action is somewhat in response to questions districts have had about how to go about reporting performance ratings.  But because this is not specifically defined, you still have the latitude to exercise discretion in how you approach this efforts; remember, it’s all about local control and your ability (and willingness) to use it wisely.