District+Improvement+Plan+Comparisons

AISD District Improvement Plan and FWISD District Improvement Plan

Before I get into this comparison, it should be noted that FWISD is currently in search of a new Superintendent. The District Improvement Plan is from the previous Superintendent and it is called Eliminating The Achievement Gap. This plan is has been ongoing since the 2010 school year.Let me address the similarities in the two plans. Both district plans include hiring highly qualified staff to meet the needs of the students. The AISD plan addresses the alignment of resources to help the district meet their goals while the FWISD plan is using an aggressive reform initiative to improve the achievement of all students. I would venture to conclude that these would address using resources to meet the goals of the district. AISD strategic plan includes the development of a well-rounded educational plan to help student compete in a today’s economy. I believe these two plans address the developing students who are able to contribute and compete in the global society in which we live. Both plans used a large stakeholder base to develop the plan. These stakeholders included parents, community members, and staff members. Neither of these plans included financial resources specifically tied to the plan. In the material that I originally accessed from our lecture, Appendix A from AISD did include specific mention of the funding resources. While this did not reference how much from each source contributed to the budget of the district, at least there was a point of reference for the funding. They both include portions of the SMART format, but the one area that is probably most notable is the lack of measurability. Both plans include statements such as “increase” or “more”, etc. While these do indicate direction, they do not provide measurable indicators.The AISD plan uses language that is included in the FWISD plan. This language addresses accountability measures such as TAKS and other references that are moving out of the education language. The Austin plan uses just as much as the FWISD plan. Both plans do address the accountability issues. The difference that I noticed is that the FWISD plan incorporates more references to technology, communication, facilities, and instructional strategies. The Appendix A of AISD does provide a resource list connected to funding of different parts of the plan. In conclusion, both of the plans are for urban school districts and have specific strategies they are pursuing to help them meet the needs of the districts. Both plans have used a strong cross section of their stakeholders to develop the plans.

From Rob: Although formats are different, both District Improvement Plans contain similar elements. State requirements dictate that each school district in Texas develops a plan for continuous improvement. This plan must incorporate elements at the district, campus, and individual employee levels. It must include long range, ongoing, and annual actions. Both plans outline models and programs for continuous improvement.

Austin’s plan is entitled ACCESS and encompasses all the above attributes. They describe it as their “comprehensive system for continuous improvement.” Huffman developed the ASPIRE initiative to achieve the similar goals. Both have specifically outlines goals and Austin included methods to perhaps recognize success, but not a whole lot of direction as to measuring what success looks like. Huffman listed numerous testing categories and specific measureable desired outcomes. We have a copy of Austin’s plan in our course. Huffman’s can be found on the following link: [].

Both districts do a great job of involving a cross-section of stakeholders from a community-wide perspective. Austin went so far as to include attendance records from their development meetings. Huffman chose not to. Additionally, the vast disparity in size between the two districts lent itself to some obvious differences so far as programming and funding allocation was concerned.

It looks as though both districts address NCLB. Additionally, Both are cognizant of achievement in at-risk populations. Austin ISD even has an appendix that speaks to pregnancy services (indicating a need area). Huffman, though certainly susceptible, only referenced it. Therefore the area is not specifically addressed other than the mention of continuation of services in the goal/strategy section.

As mentioned above, due to size, Austin appears to use its resources on numerous programs- one of interest to me is the YSM or youth service mapping. I believe that both districts have used their specific goals to drive funding through the budget process. I was able to recognize a great deal of information on funding sources. There was much mention of allocation of Title money in section A of the Austin plan (page 21). Huffman’s was set up to be listed within their goals section as referenced in pages 20-28.

Although the state sets some specific parameters for development of these plans, it is obvious that local control is the predominant factor in both the structure and content of the plans. Although I know little about the struggles within Austin ISD, it is obvious that much time and consideration was put into a plan tailor-made to fit the needs of their individual district. As far as Huffman is concerned, our need areas are definitely addressed. I believe both plans will serve in the best interest of students.