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.

HB 5 - How Are We Doing? A Conversation with Rep. Jimmie Don Aycock

The House Public Education Committee began its hearings on the progress of implementing HB 5 on March 26.  Bobby Rigues (Aledo ISD), Rick Lambert (Garland ISD) and I took the opportunity to attend the hearing, and we were privileged to have an opportunity to interview Rep. Jimmie Don Aycock, chairman of the House Public Education Committee, to get his personal perspectives on progress being made and the challenges that remain.

Specifically, we wanted to understand his views on Community and Student Engagement, how well we’re doing and the value of this effort.  Chairman Aycock shared with us his belief that it seems to be working and he cited testimony before his committee as evidence of this.  He reiterated his belief regarding the importance of communities engaging in the discussions about their student’s education.

At the same time, the Chairman acknowledged what he sees as some of the challenges surrounding implementation, including resources for counselors and other staff members, and indicating that funding will be the responsibility of the legislature and the local communities.  He also mentioned the challenge of getting students and staff in place at the right spot and the right time since all of this is “coming at them pretty quickly”.

In a prior blog, we identified the fact that HB 5 addresses three primary elements, curriculum, assessment and accountability.  When we first spoke with him late last year, Chairman Aycock indicated that it was critical that all three of these be coupled together and that each could not stand on their own.  In last week’s discussion, he reaffirmed that these must be looked at as a whole, not just looking at one test on one day.  In short, it is but one element of understanding how well public education is doing.  But he also acknowledged that finding measurable attributes for community and student engagement has been a challenge.

We talked with the Chairman about partnerships and he expressed that it is imperative that districts develop partnerships not just with higher education, but also with employers, and developing an understanding of the needs of the local communities we serve.  It is his hope that local boards will reach out to their community to better understand the workforce requirements and to form partnerships that fulfill the requirements of these jobs.

In closing, Chairman Aycock expressed to Bobby, Rick and me the importance of engaging with the community to develop partnerships with parents, educators, industry and students.  It’s critical that school board members step up to communicate the importance of aligning community and business requirements with the capabilities offered by the districts.

We thank Chairman Aycock for taking time from his committee hearing to meet with us and to share his perspectives on the progress being made in implementing House Bill 5, legislation that he sponsored and championed as it was passed and ultimately signed into law by the Governor.

Community Engagement Efforts - How to Track and Report

In a previous blog, we outlined the areas for which districts have a responsibility to report results.  To recap, these include:

• Fine arts
• Wellness and physical education
• Community and parental involvement
• 21st Century Workforce Development program
• Second language acquisition program
• Digital learning environment
• Dropout prevention strategies
• Educational programs for gifted and talented students

The ratings for these eight elements must be submitted by August 8 of each year, effective this year.  So there is little time to decide how your district is going to proceed.  The first decision relates to forming the committee that will be tasked with defining the key metrics for each area.  Will you set up a separate committee, or will you use the resources of an existing committee such as your district advisory committee?  The reality is that most districts will find it necessary (and appropriate) to use an existing committee or subset of an existing committee.

So once you name the members of the committee, what next?  The committee should meet with the administration (with board involvement) to begin to define what metrics are most import to committee members and to the community for each of the above.  There are no guidelines on how many metrics should be defined for each element, but don’t make it so onerous that you cannot adequately evaluate the key measurements.

Probably the best resources for defining potential metrics come from:

• Trustees in other districts;
• Your Education Service Center; or
• TASB

TASB (and we assume most education service centers) has developed a spreadsheet for tracking results; the key metrics are likely already defined and the process is as simple as entering results into a spreadsheet, yielding ratings by campus and for the district.  You can certainly choose to go it alone, but there simply may not be enough time between now and August 8.  So why not tap the resources that have already done extensive work, and defined their perspectives on how to address the obligations and opportunities created by HB 5.

We welcome input from trustees around the state on what worked well for you.  What were some of the key metrics you have adopted?  How did you form a committee and how did you set the criteria for each element?  And what did you use for a tool to compile and ultimately report your results?  Remember, local control gives you the latitude, and creates the obligation, to act in a manner most appropriate for your district.

HB 5 and Community Engagement - What Next?

We have talked at length about the requirements under House Bill 5 relating to Curriculum.  Given the fact that there is a deadline associated with the Community and Student Engagement part of the legislation, we decided to refocus our message on that topic.  We will get back to discussions surrounding both Curriculum and Assessment in the near term.

So what are the requirements relating to Community and Student Engagement?  While a small part of the text in the bill (only about 2 pages of a 111 page bill), this area represents both a significant requirement and a responsibility to engage all stakeholders, including business partners and students. 

But part of the challenge is that HB 5 does not provide a prescriptive “how to” relating to actions that you as trustees must take in this area.  The text of the bill relating to community and student engagement can be found at:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/11EC_4vlqNnHwiY7vbhTyYPc1uLVLaYKnttVi68p8AgI

Specifically, the key points included in a new Section 39.0545 of the Texas Education Code include:

-          - School districts must evaluate the performance of each campus as well as the District.

-          - Based on this assessment, the District must assign a rating of exemplary, recognized, acceptable or not acceptable to each campus.

-          - The rating reflects overall performance as well as performance for individual factors, including:

o   Fine arts

o   Wellness and physical education

o   Community and parental involvement

o   21^st Century Workforce Development program

o   Second language acquisition program

o   Digital learning environment

o   Dropout prevention strategies

o   Educational programs for gifted and talented students

-          - The ratings must be submitted by August 8 each year, effective August 8, 2014.

-          - In addition, each District must report on compliance with the statutory reporting requirements.

Further, Section 46 of HB 5 establishes a requirement that the criteria for evaluating the performance against each of the above factors is to be defined by a local committee … not TEA, not the SBOE (italics added by the author). 

But that’s it!  Nothing further defined.  And that’s what local control is all about.  So, if you have not already moved forward with designating a committee to analyze and provide this input for your District, the time to act is NOW!  You may choose to create a new committee or appoint existing committee members to undertake this effort.  It is up to you.

Over the past couple of months, we have had discussions with superintendents and with region service centers in an effort to better understand how to report this information.  Not surprisingly, there is no consensus.  You may want to contact your local ESC to see if they have developed a template for inputting the factors and evaluation for each.  For example, we know that Region XI has developed a template that is being used by many districts in our region.  But you are not bound to use what they can offer; again, local control suggests that this is a decision you make.

With the August 8 deadline, there is little time for delay.  Talk with fellow trustees in other districts; talk with your ESC.  But, most importantly, start the dialog now.  Your community and your students deserve a highly focused effort to comply with Section 46 of HB 5; it’s up to us to meet their expectations!

But My District Cannot Afford To Offer More Than The Multidisciplinary Endorsement! (Part 2)

In Part One, we shared a perspective and belief that, while many districts believe that they can only offer the Multidisciplinary endorsement initially, there are ways to address this in a manner that may yield opportunities to offer additional endorsements. 

Allow me to offer an editorial comment here.  Having just returned from the TASB-sponsored Winter Governance training, we are encouraged by the progress that many districts are making in considering how they can go about expanding the opportunities, i.e., endorsements, for their students.  As with any new opportunity, there were some who saw the requirements of HB 5 as being more of an impediment than an opportunity.  Remember, the introduction of the concept of endorsements is not intended to place a burden on districts.  It is, like all else contained in this 111 page landmark legislation, designed to focus on ensuring student success.

So where do we begin?  Regardless of a District’s size, this is fundamentally a shift from the way that we have always looked at curriculum design, giving greater flexibility and local control to districts to define those endorsements best suited to the needs of their students, their district, and the community at large.

The starting point is clearly a review of existing courses and curriculum in the District.  Are the requirements of each endorsement unique, or is the issue one of repackaging courses and programs already offered? Once you have conducted an initial assessment of your offerings, try to group them under the endorsements.  Be open minded and objective as you go through this process.  While you may not find an exact match for all courses, we believe strongly that there will be a close alignment in many cases that will yield positive results for you.

At the same time, there will be gaps in the ability to provide courses to fulfill a particular endorsement.  And that is where opportunity again presents itself.  Identify and seek out relationships with neighboring districts who have the ability to offer courses you may not.  Work with them to establish an ability for your students to participate in courses they offer, whether remotely or in person.  For example, a superintendent in a 2A district outside of Waco told us of his plans to partner with two districts in the Waco area to offer additional career and technology options to the students in his district.

Or consider partnering with a local college or university to deliver the courses required to fill out an endorsement.  Another central Texas district intends to partner with Temple College to provide certain of the Arts & Humanities required courses.  Yet another district is working with the local business community to understand their local staffing needs, and to cooperatively develop and deliver certain courses that meet these companies' needs.  And, finally, we learned of a business/district partnership where the company will actually host and teach courses, with the expense borne by the business partner.

There truly are a myriad of ways for districts to increase the endorsement offerings for their students.  More than anything, what it requires is a desire to do so and a creative (and open minded) approach to developing partnerships that benefit both the partner and the district.

Remember, HB offered encouragement to districts to strive to EXCEED the minimum statutory requirements of law.  It falls squarely on the shoulders of the administration and Board of Trustees to ensure that students are afforded the greatest opportunity to succeed.  Endorsements represent that opportunity!   

But My District Cannot Afford To Offer More Than The Multidisciplinary Endorsement!

Now that House Bill 5 has defined the five endorsements that a district can offer, we all face the challenge of how to best do so.  The feeling, and sometimes the argument, by the boards and administration of many districts is that they can offer only the multidisciplinary endorsement.  So how do they (and we) address this concern?  How do we strive to exceed the minimum requirements to best drive student success?

It is clear that there is no consensus on how to approach the analysis and determination of the endorsements that an individual district can offer.  And that is a fundamental change from how we have approached curriculum development in the past.  Over the past several years, the State Board of Education has told us what we need to offer (i.e., the 4X4 curriculum) without any regard for the needs of the students in our communities or the workforce demands in our communities.  We were simply told that we must offer the 4X4!

Under HB 5, we now have the flexibility at a local level to determine what is best for our student population.  In conversations with superintendents and board members across the state, there is a significant divergence of opinion on how to approach the challenge.  Of course, the smaller the district, the greater the challenge.  Or is it?

Boards and district administration must weigh a number of factors when making a determination on which endorsements to offer the students in their districts.  They must look at the courses required to fill out an endorsement, and they must assess the staffing implications associated with delivery of new courses; in many cases, this brings about a certification challenge for our teaching staffs.  Depending on the endorsement and the specific course(s), there may be technology needs that need to be met before a particular course can be offered.  And there may be facility issues associated with the new course offerings.

In Part 2 of the discussion on considerations that will perhaps lead a district to offer multiple endorsements, especially smaller districts, we will share with you some of the ideas, and more importantly the actions, being developed by superintendents  These range from simply conducting a curriculum review and slotting specific courses under a particular endorsement, to developing partnerships with neighboring districts and institutions of higher education, to building cooperative relationships with local businesses.  Clearly, we will be faced with challenges on how to address these requirements.  But the reality of HB 5 is that we each have an opportunity to weigh in on how best to do so.

Join us in Part 2 as we discuss these varied ideas and approaches., and let us know how you are approaching the challenges of HB 5.  We would love to hear from you and to share what you have learned works well in your district.