INSIGHT—Fall 2012 by Texas Association of School Administrators

TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS PROFESSIONAL JOURNAL

FALL 2012

INSIGHT What Is the Measure of a Child? page 11

FALL 2012 Volume 27

No. 3 Featured Articles Leadership Focus

What Is the Measure of a Child? What Is the Cost of More Testing, Both in Terms of Dollars and Sense?

by Dawson Orr Encourages citizens to use the democratic process to advocate and petition their government to make changes to law regarding the overuse of standardized testing, rather than sinking increasing quantities of time and money into more standardized testing

The Road to Accountability “Heck”—Good Intentions but Bad Metrics

by John Cronin and Michael Dahlin Emphasizes the importance of understanding metrics and their consequences so that administrators can make better decisions about the metrics they choose to measure student performance, which will lead to more effective school improvement strategies

Instructional Facilitation: Jumping in with Both Feet

by Vikki Mahagan and Casey Brown Proposes that instructional facilitators may be the answer to bridging the gap between learning new strategies and the actual implementation of those strategies into the classroom, but the instructional facilitators must embody appropriate skills, talents, and character traits

TSPRA Voice

The Schools That Texas Built

by Dawn Marie Baletka and Rory Gesch Offers tips on how to start an education foundation; and emphasizes that Texas schools, like the nursery rhyme The House That Jack Built, gain value and true meaning only when links are made both directly and indirectly to other organizations, things, and people

Also of Interest…

2013 Grassroots Campaign

Provides talking points to share with your local lawmakers, as well as parents, teachers, and community leaders, offering ammunition to fend off the frequent attacks from those who seem focused on dismantling public education

fall 2012

Officers

Departments TASA Professional Development Calendar President’s Message Executive Director’s View

5 7 9

Jeff N. Turner, President, Coppell ISD Darrell G. Floyd, President-Elect, Stephenville ISD Alton L. Frailey, Vice-President, Katy ISD Rod Townsend, Past President, Decatur ISD

Executive Committee Nabor Cortez, La Feria ISD, 1 Paul Clore, Gregory-Portland ISD, 2 Robert Mark Pool, El Campo ISD, 3 Trish Hanks, Friendswood ISD, 4 Shannon Holmes, Hardin-Jefferson ISD, 5 Eddie Coulson, College Station ISD, 6 J. Glenn Hambrick, Carthage ISD, 7 Diane Stegall, Chisum ISD, 8 Tom Woody, Vernon ISD, 9

TASA Headquarters Staff

Executive Director Associate Executive Director, Administrative Services

Johnny L. Veselka Paul L. Whitton, Jr.

Todd Williams, Kaufman ISD, 10 Wayne Rotan, Glen Rose ISD, 11 John Craft, Hamilton ISD, 12 David Shanley, Johnson City ISD, 13 Shane Fields, Albany ISD, 14

Assistant Executive Director, Communications & Information Systems

Ann M. Halstead

Design/Production

Anne Harpe

Deanna Logan, ESC 17

Editorial Coordinator

Karen Limb

Kevin Allen, Iraan-Sheffield ISD, 18

Leigh Ann Glaze, San Saba ISD, 15 Robert McLain, Channing ISD, 16

INSIGHT is published quarterly by the Texas Association of School Administrators, 406 East 11th Street, Austin, Texas, 78701-2617. Subscription is included in TASA membership dues. © 2012 by TASA. All rights reserved. TASA members may reprint articles in limited quantities for in-house educational use. Articles in INSIGHT are expressions of the author or interviewee and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of TASA. Advertisements do not necessarily carry the endorsement of the Texas Association of School Administrators. INSIGHT is printed by 360 Press Solutions, Cedar Park, Texas.

Edward Gabaldon, Clint ISD, 19 Kevin Brown, Alamo Heights ISD, 20 Mary Ann Whiteker, Hudson ISD, Legislative Committee Chair

At-Large Members Karen G. Rue, Northwest ISD, At-Large Martha Salazar-Zamora, Round Rock ISD, At-Large Sharon Shields, La Vega ISD, At-Large Nola Wellman, Eanes ISD, At-Large

Editorial Advisory Committee Jeff N. Turner, Coppell ISD, Chair Kevin Brown, Alamo Heights ISD John Craft, Hamilton ISD Deanna Logan, Ralls ISD Karen G. Rue, Northwest ISD Martha Salazar-Zamora, Houston ISD Mary Ann Whiteker, Hudson ISD

INSIGHT

TASA Fall 2012 Calendarr October 9

School Transformation Executive Briefing

Yong Zhao

9–10

Leadership in the Digital Learning Age (Session 1 of 3)

November Learning

10–11

Texas S.M.A.R.T Coach Academy

QLD

11–12

Leadership in the Digital Learning Age (Session 1 of 3)

November Learning

23–26

Curriculum Management Audit Training Level I

Curriculum Management Systems, Inc.

30–31

Academy for Transformational Leadership

Schlechty Center

30–Nov. 2

Curriculum Management Audit Training Level II

Curriculum Management Systems, Inc.

DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Austin ESC Region One TASA Headquarters Austin Marriott North TASA Headquarters ESC Region One TASA Headquarters

November 1–2

Academy for Transformational Leadership Schlechty Center (Session 1 of 4)

7–8

First-time Superintendents' Academy (Session 2)

Strategies for School District Leadership in Challenging Economic Times

8–9

TASA Future-Ready Superintendents' Leadership Institute (Session 1 of 5)

27–30

Texas Assessment Conference

DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Austin– University Area Austin Marriott North

APQC Education

Webinar Wyndham Dallas Love Field

Hilton Austin Hotel

December 6

Process and Performance Management Seminar

APQC Education

12–13

Texas S.M.A.R.T Coach Academy QLD (Session 2 of 4)

TA S A

Webinar TASA Headquarters

Texas Association of School Administrators

Midwinter Conference & Education EXPO Austin Convention Center • Austin, TX • January 27–30, 2013 Student-Centered Schools • Future-Ready Students

First General Session Speaker Jamie Vollmer, Author and Champion for America’s Public Schools Monday, January 28, 3:30–5 p.m. Building “The Great Conversation”—Playing Defense Is Not Enough! www.tasanet.org fall 2012

NEW SERIES for Developing Educational Leaders School leaders communicate a vision and set the culture of a school. They also drive excellence in teaching and learning and build processes for supporting continuous improvement. Our new Leaders Developing Leaders Series is designed to support and develop current and aspiring administrators. The seminars focus on key areas that affect student achievement: • School Culture • Teaching and Learning • Continuous Improvement

Bring this leadership series on-site in your district! Call 866.399.6019 or visit leadandlearn.com The Leadership and Learning Center® is a registered trademark of Advanced Learning Centers, Inc. © Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. 08/12 MS52932

A Grassroots Movement for Change are clean, teachers are trained, and learners are looking forward to the start Classrooms of the school year…a time filled with new beginnings when opportunity, imagination, innovation, and creativity come together for all children in the great state of Texas. In public education, this is a time for transformation that will set the course for the future of every child who walks through our doors.

President’s Message Now is the perfect time to contact your elected senators and state representatives to establish or renew those relationships in preparation for the upcoming legislative session. This may challenge some of us to step out of our comfort zone, but it is crucial if we are to work collaboratively with our legislators in the common interest of all students.

You don’t have to look very far to see the myriad ways districts across the state are embracing the tenets of theVisioning document, Creating a New Vision for Public Education in Texas, and stepping up to meet the challenge of transforming our classrooms and the learning that occurs inside. From creating more collaborative work spaces to a greater use of technology at all grade levels, and from project-based learning and “flipped classrooms” to virtual and blended learning—the possibilities are endless and exciting. Upon completion of our first year of the STAAR accountability system, much work remains to be done if we are to accurately assess our learners. Another area primed for transformation, we must continue to work closely with our legislators to re-examine the accountability system and develop one that truly measures student learning against rigorous standards and prepares them for their global futures. Now is the perfect time to contact your elected senators and state representatives to establish or renew those relationships in preparation for the upcoming legislative session. This may challenge some of us to step out of our comfort zone, but it is crucial if we are to work collaboratively with our legislators in the common interest of all students. There will be no transformation unless there is a grassroots movement for change. We know that the standardized testing of today is a far cry from its intended purpose, and recent research indicates high scores on a one-time test do not determine mastery. It is imperative that your stakeholders know the truth—that high-stakes testing: n Does not teach learners how to synthesize content and use critical thinking skills n Teaches learners to memorize and recite facts for a one-time test n Robs teachers and learners of valuable instructional time in the classroom

As this issue goes to press, 710 Texas school districts representing over 4 million learners (82 percent of Texas’ student population) have already adopted a high-stakes testing resolution. Visit www.transformtexas.org to learn more. Please make sure your board members, parents, and community groups are informed about this issue and encourage their communication with your legislators. For legislative contact information, visit www.capitol.state.tx.us. By the time this edition of INSIGHT reaches your desk, we will likely know the 20 school districts chosen to participate in the state’s High Performance Schools Consortium (HPSC). As leaders, we must band together in support of those selected—not work against them. There will still be opportunities for each of us to play an integral role in this transformational effort: form a local consortium with districts in your area; look to existing consortia for assistance in the process; use theVisioning document to help guide/ shape your involvement. Remember, the end result will improve the system for all of us and, more importantly, the children we serve!

fall 2012

to Our 2012 TASA/TASB Convention Sponsors Titanium

Platinum

Gold

Silver

Bronze

A Window of Opportunity Change is not a choice—schools are going to change with or without the support of educators. We must move to invent schools that have never before existed. Phil Schlechty

It’s hard to believe that Phil Schlechty said those words nearly 15 years ago atTASA’s 1998 Executive director’s VIEW The heart of the school transformation effort lies in local districts and communities. Wholesale transformation of the magnitude we all envision requires a new set of skills for every member of your leadership team.

Spring Conference. His insight about the inevitability of change and the need for a new vision of schools was accurate. Fortunately, here in Texas school leaders are taking drastic steps to ensure that educators not only support change but design and drive it as well. Our window of opportunity is now! MISSION: School Transformation continues to gain momentum in school districts and communities all over the state. As you ramp up your transformation efforts, TASA’s goal is to provide you with all the tools and resources you need to implement and sustain the work. The heart of the school transformation effort lies in local districts and communities. Regional consortia are springing up across the state, and TASA is supporting them in a variety of ways, including providing opportunities for consortia members to collaborate, share resources, and implement common strategies for district and community engagement. Online tools and resources for MISSION: School Transformation are being collected on our new website, transformtexas.org. TASA’s School Transformation Network (STN) will continue to be a major focal point of our efforts to provide services, resources, and professional learning opportunities.Through this unique community, we are able to provide special learning opportunities to members in subscribing districts. For example, a series of School Transformation Executive Briefings for network subscribers has been planned, kicking off with Yong Zhao on October 9 in Austin. The increased level of engagement among subscribing districts will substantially improve transformation efforts at the local level, as well as enhance overall state-level efforts. Wholesale transformation of the magnitude we all envision requires a new set of skills for every member of your leadership team. All of our 2012–13 conferences, academies, and workshops are designed around the school transformation effort, while still providing those learning opportunities needed to help you run your districts on a day-to-day basis. We are particularly excited about the creation of TASA’s Future-Ready Superintendents Leadership Institute, an opportunity for the next generation of leaders to take up the passion and urgency of change and propel the mission forward in the coming years.We also look forward to supporting the work of the Texas High Performance Schools Consortium, being established in response to SB 1557. The success of our mission depends on the dedicated involvement of all of us. I encourage you to join a regional consortium, subscribe to TASA’s School Transformation Network, and send a leadership team to the 2013 Midwinter Conference. If TASA can help your work in any way, please don’t hesitate to contact me!

fall 2012

MAP® (Measures of Academic Progress)

NWEA is a market leader specializing in research-driven strategies to measure real student growth in the classroom. All NWEA education services are designed to identify each student’s individual learning profile in the classroom. Today, over five million students take NWEA assessments each year.

NWEA MAP assessments are state-aligned, computer adaptive assessment tools that accurately reflect the instructional level of each student. Districts use MAP to monitor student academic growth accurately and consistently over time. NWEA offers MAP assessments in the following categories: Reading

Student Growth

Mathematics Language Usage General science and science concepts Reading and mathematics in primary grades (K–2nd grades)

NWEA currently partners with more than 5,200 school districts and education agencies around the globe. Founded by educators, NWEA has been a leading research and testing organization helping kids learn for over 35 years.

Texas Representatives Tim Blaine Texas Region Manager tim.blaine@nwea.org 971-404-9678

Child-friendly adaptive assessment & powerful instant reports Developmentally appropriate for PK–3 Literacy & Mathematics Aligned to TEKS TEA Approved*

–North Texas–

Dave Irby Sr. Account Executive 817-471-5619 dave.irby@nwea.org –South Texas–

Pete Gonzales Sr. Account Executive 210-416-1886 pete.gonzales@nwea.org 406 East 11th Street Suite 303 Austin, Texas 78701

K-8 Skills-based Computer Adaptive Vertical Assessment Uncover prerequisite skills students are missing Tutorials and practice activities aligned to state and local standards Detailed reporting functions for teachers and administrators * TEA’s 2011–2012 Commissioner’s List of Approved Reading Instruments

What Is the Measure of a Child? What Is the Cost of More Testing, Both in Terms of Dollars and Sense? by Dawson Orr s this issue of INSIGHT goes to press, 710 Texas school boards have taken a stand against excessive Astandardized testing by adopting a common resolution supporting former Commissioner of Education Robert Scott’s call for a re-examination of the system. Speaking at the TASA 2012 Midwinter Conference, Scott’s remarks were strongly worded and unusually candid. His characterization of the state testing system as “a perversion of its original intent” has triggered a healthy debate.What would lead someone, much less the leader responsible at that time for the oversight and accountability of an entire state public education system serving 4.9 million children, to make such a statement? Why have these remarks encouraged a movement insisting on a re-examination on the role of standardized testing as the way to judge learning and school effectiveness? As a side note, since this discussion began, I have also been asked if parents have the right to “opt out” of standardized testing under provisions of the Texas Education Code. With all due respect to Civil Disobedience author Henry David Thoreau, I do not believe that the law allows for such an option, and I would counsel against such action. I do believe that citizens should use the democratic process to advocate and petition their government to make changes to law. The Texas Legislature reconvenes in January of 2013, and that is the appropriate and effective venue for such actions.

Aligning Educational Goals with STAAR and Other Tests Let me return to the call by hundreds of elected school boards, representing the majority of children in Texas public schools, to exam the use of standardized testing.While I do not speak in any way for such a large and diverse constituency, I can offer my own beliefs about the overuse of standardized testing and the effects it has had on the education of children and youth, families, and educators. My intent is to contribute to the emerging, more extensive dialogue about the aim and purpose of education and the role that assessment and accountability play in shaping the experiences of children and teachers. I am not advocating for the elimination of all standardized testing. In fact, I support its appropriate use. Standardized testing has played an important role in measuring our system as a whole and addressing educational inequities. If our goal for K-12 education is college and career readiness, it is an appropriate time to ask if there are smarter ways to invest our time and money, rather than sinking increasing quantities of both into more standardized testing.

Is This the Best Use of $100 Million? In terms of time, under the new STAAR program, the number of days devoted to testing has increased dramatically. At the high school level alone, there are 45 designated testing days, including retesting days. There are only 175–180 school days in most Texas public schools.That means that at least 25 percent of

fall 2012

will typically be attributed to it. Why are tests not the instruments of precision that we have been led to believe they are?

SAT, standardized tests all include statistical measures that recognize human beings are not perfectly consistent. If a student were to take an identical standardized test many times in a row, odds are that the student’s Going Beyond a Single Measure In terms of money, the state spends $100 While not used for school accountability, scores would vary within a predictable million every year on assessment. Would let’s consider two well-known, important range. Good days and bad days occur in stratified randomly sampled assessment tests used to determine college readiness as students’ lives, and these ups and downs of students in some grades and subjects, a way to understand some of the limitations definitely affect performance. Add in that combined with testing all students in key inherent in standardized tests.The SAT and standardized tests have multiple forms transition years, provide the same quality ACT are established, large-scale tests that because of the need to retest, and betweenof data at lower cost? Why do countries are continually refined to provide the best form variation will surely occur. Statisticians that require far less standardized testing information possible to determine college quantify this variation in a “standard error outperform our students on international readiness. Their primary purpose is to of measurement.” This is why test experts measures? How do they use testing, and determine which students are academically continually caution that the interpretation what other strategies do they employ? ready for college.Yet, despite the long history of a single score must be made within These and other questions are worthy of of reliability and validity ascribed to these the context of an estimated error range. discussion, and I encourage all who care college admissions tests, the administering Numbers don’t tell the whole story, and about meaningful learning for children to bodies of these tests recommend that the a single test score definitely doesn’t tell us engage in dialogue, discussion, and debate scores be combined with other meaningful what we need to know about every student. regarding the overall direction of our public measures to determine admission. Why is schools. that? Why do colleges consider courses, Despite the known limitations of large-scale grades, leadership, service, personal essays, testing, our state and federal policymakers Standardized testing is at the foundation and letters of recommendations in addition have devised accountability and reporting of today’s bureaucratic regulatory to SAT and ACT scores? It’s because systems that rely solely on students’ single accountability system. These tests are not multiple indicators provide a more accurate scores as the basic unit of analysis for unerringly precise enough to serve as the and complete assessment of the applicant; determining a school’s effectiveness. Those sole measure of student learning and school they paint the picture of the individual scores are aggregated into an accountability effectiveness. Standardized tests are a tool behind the numbers. Our children are far system that uses the lowest performance and, like all tools, are designed to accomplish more than numbers, and we want the world level of a given subgroup, as defined by ethnicity or economic status, to define the some form of work. And while tools can to see them for who they are. maximum accountability and accreditation serve multiple purposes or be limited to highly specific tasks, all tools have limits on Yet, the cautionary tale of testing ranking the school can receive. The floor their utility. So it is with standardized tests. organizations using their tests in combination becomes the ceiling, regardless of the overall And yet they determine whether students with other relevant indicators is not just performance of the student population are promoted, awarded end-of-course driven by a regard for consideration of at that school, and regardless of any other credit, and graduate. When aggregated to individuals. It has a more technical dimension evidence of student achievement such as the campus and district levels, the tests that that resides in the world of sampling and participation and performance in advanced determine rewards or sanctions are limited statistics. The content of any test is at best placement courses, graduation rates, ACT measures of the learning that has occurred. a brief sampling of a much larger body of and SAT scores, or college acceptance. Such content. Some state curriculum content a system is at best incomplete and, more n UCLA’s James Popham, one of the nation’s standards or concepts are measured by a often, flat-out misleading. most respected testing experts, notes that single question that is patently insufficient both educators and non-educators alike to draw any instructionally valid conclusion ascribe unerring accuracy and precision about what a student knows or doesn’t to standardized tests that are simply not know. A second reality and limitation is that Dawson Orr is superintendent at Highland justified. He notes that the larger the scale standardized tests carry with them built- Park ISD (ESC 10) and a member of TASA’s of the test, the more accuracy and precision in error. Whether TAKS, STAAR, ACT, or School Transformation Network Design Team. the school days have some sort of mandatory testing. The tests vary by grade level and subject area, but the burden on children and staff is considerable.

INSIGHT

A reading coach for every student – anytime, anywhere! 850

22% More Students Reach TX Reading Standard

800

After using the Reading Assistant program, fifth grade students improved their group average Lexile® reading score from 541 to 753. The percentage of study participants who met the Texas state standard for reading proficiency increased from 56% to 78%.

Lexile Score

750 700 650 600 550

Learn more: www.scilearn.com/readingassistantinfo

500 450 50 0

Get an online demo today.

Reading Before

After

Help Them Amaze You

Kim Dill, Regional Director 817-247-6539 kdill@scilearn.com

THE RICHARD

JOB: SCE-10-0

GoingToThe Principal’s Office Can Be A Good Thing.

CLIENT: SMU

TITLE: Ed Leader PUB(S): INSIGHT

INSERTIO Winter 20

Be a Leader of Leaders.

TRIM: 7.5 x 4.75

Next year’s action plan: Build your leadership team. The Master’s Degree in Educational Leadership is designed to prepare educators for leadership positions in pre-K through grade-12 public, charter, private secular and religious schools. Through study and research in the areas of organizational leadership, academic leadership, and teacher effectiveness, graduates of the program are well prepared to lead 21st century schools.

214.768.1715

smu.edu/edleader

LIVE: N/A BLEED: N/A

edleader@smu.edu

COLOR IN CMYK/SW 133LS/28

QUESTIO Jen Dunc 214-891Southern Methodist University will not discriminate in any employment practice, education program or educational activity on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, disability or veteran status. SMU’s commitment to equal opportunity includes nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

SCE100026 EL Insight.indd 1

fall 2012

10/18/10 11:05 AM

Communications and Information Resources, Governmental Advocacy, Leadership Development, Legal Support, Peer Support and Networking, Career Center—we’ve got what you need to be a top-notch leader! Plus these special services to enhance your district and its leadership team!

2012–13 TASA Services We hope that you’re taking EVERY advantage of the wide variety of TASA district-level subscriptions and services— all designed to enhance leadership teams.

Accountability Forum Service

This unique subscription service, offered by TASA in cooperation with Moak, Casey & Associates, is designed to assist superintendents and other school leaders in understanding and managing the complex assessment and accountability systems.

Benefit

Forum subscribers benefit from a built-in network of expert advisors who bridge the gap between state and local school districts. In addition, subscribers become part of an active professional community where peers SHARE information and solutions!

Legislative and Public Policy Services (LPPS) Service

LPPS provides increased resources to help TASA truly make a difference in our overall success of representing and advocating for all Texas school districts.

Benefit

Through the voluntary contributions of members toward our legislative efforts, TASA is able to expand research, policy analysis, and education, which in turn help our members BECOME informed advocates!

School Transformation Network (STN) Service

STN focuses on the development of innovative, next-generation learning standards and assessment and accountability systems for Texas public schools, applying the principles and premises in TASA’s Creating a New Vision for Public Education in Texas.

Benefit

Participating districts have the opportunity to collaborate in special professional learning opportunities, Network briefings, and other events throughout the year. Network participants are bound together by their desire to connect and REALIZE the “new vision”!

Texas Curriculum Management Audit™ Services

INSIGHT

Service

These specialized audit services, offered through the Texas Curriculum Management Audit Center (TCMAC) in cooperation with Curriculum Management Systems, Inc. (CMSi), focus specifically on delivering services to Texas school districts in a cost-effective manner.

Benefit

Districts have access to an array of curriculum management audit services and training programs, consultation, and technical support services that MAKE a powerful impact on student achievement!

The Road to Accountability “Heck” Good Intentions but Bad Metrics by John Cronin and Michael Dahlin

Principal Sharpe wanted to improve her school’s reading scores.She understood that reading

improves with practice, which led her to implement a strategy to get the whole school reading. So Principal Sharpe organized a contest, and set a goal for each student to read 10 books. If 90 percent of the students in a classroom met the goal, the class celebrated with a pizza party.And if 90 percent of the school’s students met the goal, Ms. Sharpe would move her desk to the roof of the building for a day.The strategy worked brilliantly and every class met its goal, yet at the end of the term reading scores didn’t budge.When Principal Sharpe was puzzled, some teachers explained why the strategy failed—students chose short, easy books to meet the goal.



Everyone agrees on the importance of using data to make educational decisions. But it’s easy to forget that the data we use to make decisions also creates consequences. In this case, counting the number of books read had the consequence of getting students to read more but easier books. Using other metrics, requiring that the books must be at or above the students’ reading level, and/or counting the number of pages as well as the number of books, might have led to the desired result of improved reading performance.

John Cronin, Director, Kingsbury Center, NWEA

Most schools still use metrics to measure performance that had their origins in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Those metrics influence the behavior of schools, not always in ways that really improve the learning of all students. By understanding these metrics and their consequences, administrators can make better decisions about the metrics they choose to measure student performance, which will lead to more effective school improvement strategies. One of the best ways to improve prospects for the future is to learn from the lessons of the past.

Illustration #1 Metric—The use of proficiency as the key measure in the No Child Left Behind Act Consequence—A misalignment between the proficiency standards of the states and the aspirations of parents and students

Michael Dahlin, Research Specialist

One of the keystone features of NCLB was the requirement that 100 percent of students achieve proficiency by 2014, a provision explicitly designed to eliminate all achievement gaps in reading and mathematics by requiring all students to meet high standards. In this respect, its intent aligns with parents’ goals: ensuring that all students meet high standards. Parents and students generally express consistent goals for their schooling. Parents want their kids to attend college, and kids generally agree. For example, a 2004 survey conducted by the Patterson

fall 2012

Institute of the United Negro College Fund found that 96 percent of African-American parents and 92 percent of African-American students believed that a college education was very important to their future success. Consequently, most parents and students understand the term “proficiency,” as it applies to academic success, as being “on track” for college readiness. And the goals of parents are the same wherever they live. College readiness isn’t different in Colorado than it is in Georgia or Illinois. In practice, the proficiency standards eventually adopted by most states were unaligned to parents’ and students’ aspirations. Figure 1, based on our organization’s research (e.g., Durant and Dahlin, 2011; NWEA, 2011), shows the difficulty of the 7th grade mathematics proficiency standards in 36 states relative to the achievement needed to be on track for college readiness, expressed as percentile ranks based on NWEA norms in which higher numbers imply more difficult standards. For example, a percentile rank of 72 would imply that roughly 28 percent of a normative sample of students would be expected to meet or exceed that level of achievement. Not a single state has a proficiency standard that reaches the college readiness benchmark (the 72nd percentile on our norms), and most states don’t come close. Nineteen states set proficiency standards at or below the 40th percentile, and four states set standards at or below the 20th percentile. How did the high standards intended by NCLB evolve into standards so misaligned to parents’ and students’ aspirations? Two things happened. First, NCLB established proficiency as the benchmark, yet offered no explicit definition of what that vague concept meant, leaving states to create their own. As shown by Figure 1, this led to huge variations in proficiency standards across states. Second, the law’s intent was unintentionally sabotaged by the requirement that all students meet state standards, and by the sanctions imposed on schools failing to make Adequate 16

INSIGHT

Figure 1–NWEA estimates of the difficulty of the 7th grade mathematics standards in 36 states, expressed as percentile ranks Figure adapted from State of Proficiency (Durant and Dahlin, 2011)

Yearly Progress (AYP). Soon after NCLB was adopted, it became apparent to most educators that high (e.g., college readiness) standards could not be achieved by 100 percent of students, yet the consequences for failure were quite clear. Thus, most states adopted or adjusted their proficiency standards to reflect achievement levels that were attainable by all. Indeed, a few states that had previously set very high standards lowered them after NCLB. Between 2003 and 2011, for example,Washington lowered its 7th grade proficiency standard from the 78th to the 54th percentile, while South Carolina lowered its standard from the 78th to the 36th percentile, Wyoming lowered its 8th grade proficiency cut score from the 89th to the 43rd percentile, and Arizona lowered its score from the 75th to the 50th percentile. Each of those states had initially adopted standards consistent with college readiness, but lowered them after NCLB. So the decision to require 100 percent proficiency rates, combined with the threat of sanctions and the lack of definition

for “proficiency,” had unfortunate consequences. Many states lowered their proficiency standards out of alignment with the aspirations of parents and students.

Illustration #2 Metric—Measuring success by counting the numbers of “proficient” students Consequence—Instruction focused on a small minority of bubble kids rather than all students The problem with this metric is that only some students within a classroom influence the outcome. Students far above or below grade-level standards tend to stay that way, showing no change. It is only students whose achievements are very near the boundary of proficient performance, so called “bubble kids,” whose successes or failures are likely to change the rate. Figure 2 provides a simple illustration of the problem, depicting the projected fall-to-spring change in student performance in a large South Carolina school system, relative to the state’s 8th grade

math standard (shown in blue). Students in gray, roughly 85 percent of the group, remained at the same level. Further, the vast majority of these students had no chance of changing their proficiency rating, since they began so far above or below the standard that the amount of change needed would have been nearly impossible. About 15 percent of the group did change their status,

with those shown in green improving while those in yellow declined. The consequence of this metric is that teachers have a strong disincentive to focus on students far above or below the proficiency standard, creating a unique form of discrimination. Teachers must ignore the needs of high- and low-performing

students in order to comply with Adequate Yearly Progress requirements by moving a few on-the-cusp students over their state’s proficiency bar. If the goal of schools is to serve all students, then the use of this metric undercut that goal.

Illustration #3 Metric—Measuring “Achievement Gaps” as differences in proficiency rates Consequence—Size of gap depends on where the proficiency bar is set As mentioned, one goal of NCLB was to eliminate achievement gaps by reporting the differences in the percentages of proficient students within subgroups. For example, if 75 percent of white students and 53 percent of Hispanic students in a district are proficient, there is a 22 percent achievement gap.

Figure 2 – Change in projected performance relative to the 8th grade math proficiency standard in a South Carolina school system

Figure 3 – Difference in proficiency rates in mathematics for Mayberry Elementary School students when the proficiency cut scores of 28 states are applied

On its face, this might seem fine unless one considers that the size of the achievement gap depends on where the proficiency standard is set.With extremely high standards (that nearly all fail), there is little achievement gap, precisely because everyone fails. Similarly, there is very little achievement gap with extremely low standards that everyone meets. Only when standards are somewhere in the middle will the gap be measurable. But with no consistent definitions for proficiency, it’s hard to draw any conclusions about national progress towards eliminating achievement gaps. This phenomenon is illustrated in Figure 3, which shows the achievement gap between low- and high-income students (as measured by free/reduced price lunch eligibility) in one school, Mayberry Elementary (a real school but not its real name), when 28 different state proficiency standards are applied. Under Colorado, Georgia, and Michigan state standards, Mayberry shows very little achievement gap between lowand high-poverty students. Under Texas standards, the gap is slightly higher. Under

fall 2012

South Carolina and Massachusetts state standards, the achievement gap was very high. In Georgia, the local paper might report that Mayberry’s achievement gaps were minimal. In Texas, a school board might see Mayberry’s achievement gap as real but manageable. In Massachusetts, the size of Mayberry’s achievement gap would likely constitute a crisis. One school with one population of students shows 28 different achievement gaps, depending on what set of arbitrary proficiency standards were applied.

Illustration #4 Metric—Setting standards individually by grade level within a state

Figure 4 – Difficulty of Texas proficiency cut scores in mathematics, relative to NWEA norms

Consequence—Differences in student performance reported that are not real NCLB required states to establish proficiency independently at each grade level. Consequently, the 7th grade proficiency cut scores were typically set without consideration to the 8th or 6th grade proficiency cut scores.As a result, proficiency standards vary greatly in difficulty across grades.

Put another way, the “typical” 5th grader needs to demonstrate relatively little achievement in order to meet the 5th grade standard, whereas the “typical” 7th grader needs to put forth a great deal more effort. The result, as you might expect, is that fewer students are likely to make proficiency in 7th grade than 5th grade. So is that really the case?

When proficiency standards are uncalibrated Figure 5 would suggest it is the case. Here across grades (that is, very easy in one, we see the proportion of students in Austin very hard in the next), it becomes more who achieved proficiency or better on the difficult to predict future performance from current performance. If a student meets an easy standard this year, she/he may not be on track to meet a more difficult standard next year. When proficiency bars mean something different every year, schools cannot accurately track student improvement over time. Figure 4 shows our estimate of the difficulty of Texas mathematics proficiency cut scores, relative to the NWEA norms. The figure shows that the 5th grade cut score is the easiest, estimated at the 24th percentile on NWEA norms. The 7th grade cut score, which is estimated at the 41st percentile, is the most difficult. 18

INSIGHT

Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) in 2009 (the state test at that time); 87 percent of Austin’s 5th graders achieved proficiency on that test, which had the easiest cut score, while only 59 percent of students achieved proficiency in 7th grade, which was the test with the hardest cut score. The differences in the difficulty of the cut scores create a problem.A layperson looking at Figure 5 might conclude that Austin’s schools do a poorer job of teaching math to middle schoolers than to elementary

Figure 5 – Proportion of Students in Austin,TX who met or exceeded proficiency on TAKS in 2009

students. They would be wrong. These differences in performance have nothing to do with the relative effectiveness of the schools, but are instead almost entirely the result of differences in the difficulty of the cut scores on the tests. These imaginary discrepancies could lead schools to make poor decisions about their allocation of data. In this case, one might decide to make dramatic changes in the 6th and 7th grade math programs based on the mistaken impression that these grades are underperforming, and those changes may not improve things; they could actually make performance worse.

than median scores, to evaluate student performance. Further, educators now recognize that measuring growth is as important as measuring performance, and measures of growth are more useful when schools are making decisions about the effectiveness of their programs. Finally, richer data generally leads to better decisions. Moving beyond the state test to using data from interim assessments, diagnostic measures, and good classroom assessments will provide a richer and more accurate context for educators to consider when making decisions, and ultimately to the best answers for students. n

Educators are more and more focused on using data to make the best decisions for their students. These examples show that the selection of accountability metrics has profound impact on how student performance data are interpreted. Requiring all students to achieve proficiency seems a good thing, but it caused many states to lower proficiency standards. Measuring a school’s effectiveness by counting the proportion of proficient students seemed harmless, but it encouraged educators to focus their instruction on a few bubble students rather than all kids. Using proficiency rates to measure achievement gaps caused the size of the achievement gap to vary as the difficulty of the standard varied. As a result, achievement gaps may seem less serious in states with low cut scores than they are in states that set higher bars. Finally, setting standards that were not consistent in difficulty across grades made it seem that middle schools were less effective than elementary schools, when in fact elementary and middle schools perform similarly.

John Cronin is director of the Kingsbury Center at Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA), and Michael Dahlin is a research specialist.

We encourage educators to use data AND to think very carefully about the metrics they choose and the consequences they might have on decisions. In general, it is better to use median scores rather than proficiency percentages, because the median score is a more informative measure of student performance. Even better, consider looking at distributions of students, rather

TASB HR Services Your key to managing human resources

Since 1984, we have been the leading provider of consulting, training, and data services in human resources for Texas schools.

Our services include the following:

References Durant, S., and Dahlin, M.P. (2011). The State of Proficiency. Retrieved on July 23, 2012 from: http://kingsburycenter. org/sites/default/files/State%20of%20 Proficiency%202011_0907.mpd_.pdf Education Week (2012, July 16). More Than Half of States Now Have NCLB Waivers. Retrieved on July 16, 2012 from: http://www.edweek.org/ew/ articles/2012/07/18/36waivers.h31.html?t kn=PLSF5wi%2FBQMjUOK6gl9418Xru I9qn3SbRnLM&cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS1 NWEA (2011). College Readiness Linking Study: A Study of the Alignment of the RIT Scales of NWEA’s MAP®Assessments with the College Readiness Benchmarks of EXPLORE®, PLN®, and ACT®. Retrieved July 23, 2012 from: http://www. nwea.org/sites/www.nwea.org/files/ACT_ LinkingStudy_1%2017%202012.pdf

• Employee surveys • Leaves and absences • Peer operational reviews • Compensation plans • Pay equity analysis • Job classification • FLSA compliance • District staffing analysis • HR benchmarking data • Online library • Work-site posters • Employee handbooks • Job descriptions • Salary surveys • Stipend surveys • HR training for administrators 800.580.7782 hrservices.tasb.org hrservices@tasb.org

HR Services

fall 2012

The Right Choice How do you know if a financial plan is the right one for you? Financial planning is not a “one-size fits all” product. Your financial plan should be created specifically for you. As an executive in the Education industry, that is a particularly challenging task. CMW staff includes highly trained people specializing in: State Retirement System Options Purchasing TRS Years/Service Credits • Retirement Strategies for Superintendents and Education Executives • Asset Management • Long-term/Disability/Life Insurance • Contract Negotiation Strategies • •

Christina Winters Gears, CEO

Open the door to your financial future today.

5201 North O’Connor • Suite 200 • Irving, Texas 75039 972.831.8866 ° 800.488.0020 • CMWFinancial.com Advisory Services and Securities offered through Lincoln Investment Planning, Inc. Registered Investment Advisor, Broker Dealer Member FINRA/SIPC. Creating & Managing Wealth, LLC. and Lincoln Investment Planning, Inc. are independently owned and each is responsible for its own business. Supervising Office: 218 Glenside Avenue, Wyncote, PA 19095 (215) 887-8111 This is for information purposes only and is not intended to be a solicitation, offer or sale of securities products or investment advisory services to anyone who resides outside of the United States. Lincoln Investment Planning, Inc. is registered as an investment advisor with the US Securities and Exchange Commission and as a broker dealer in all fifty states, Financial Representatives of Creating and Managing Wealth, LLC offer advisory services and securities through Lincoln Investment Planning, Inc. and may only transact business in a particular state if first registered and only after complying with registration requirements.

Instructional Facilitation: Jumping in with Both Feet by Vikki Mahagan and Casey Brown

Instructional facilitators may be the answer to bridging the gap between learning new strategies and

the actual implementation of those strategies into the classroom (Knight, 2007a; Otto, 2009; Sheldahl, 2007; Simons, 2006; Wall, 2009). Research has connected facilitator programs to teachers’ increased use of research-based high yield instructional strategies (Carter, 2010; Dobbins, 2010; Knapp, 1997; Otto, 2009; Ross, 1992; Simons, 2006). However, a necessary pedagogical shift faces newly hired instructional facilitators, a shift that requires a different set of knowledge, skills, and talents (Killion, 2007; Simons, 2006). The following episode is typical of many school campuses. Five teachers were hired in a large, urban school district as middle school mathematics coaches. Each coach was placed in a different middle school, leaving eight middle schools in the district without a mathematics instructional coach. Four of the five coaches were hired directly out of the classroom. One had previous central office instructional specialist experience in a neighboring district. Three coaches were pursuing a master’s degree in educational leadership. The coaches all had successful careers as secondary mathematics teachers; the similarities ended there. The coaches had to show their district, its teachers, and themselves that they could navigate the waters of coaching. They were all established as teachers, but were faced with proving themselves as coaches. At times, the coaches questioned their own abilities, but were buoyed by participating in staff development opportunities, shifting from the practice of pedagogy to andragogy, guiding teachers toward self-actualization, and using appropriate types of influence.

Thrown in the Deep End and Told to Swim Instructional facilitators (coaches) are often hired directly out of the classroom, following demonstrated success as a classroom teacher. Many have had no formal instructional leadership training (Killion, 2007), although the attainment of skills and attributes of an instructional facilitator is the most pressing factor that can make a difference between success and failure in the facilitator program (Knight, 2006). To discover opportunities for growth for coaches, secondary principal participants were asked what additional training they felt their instructional facilitators needed to be more effective in the position. Principals identified job-specific training, people skills, and andragogy as the most pressing needs (Mahagan, 2011).To fulfill these requirements, facilitators must do more than suggest staff development for others— they must also pursue it for themselves (Knight, 2006; Norton, 2007). Staff development for instructional facilitators should address at least two areas: coaching strategies and teaching practices (Knight, 2006).“Without their own professional development, instructional coaches run the risk of being ineffective, wasting time and money or even misinforming teachers” (Knight, 2006, p. 38).

fall 2012

(Curry & Killion, p. 58). Although the shift When a new coach leaves the classroom from the practice of pedagogy to andragogy to assume the role of teacher of teachers, is a research-based recommendation, the a shift in theory and practice must take shift can cause discomfort on the part of place; practice shifts from that of pedagogy the adult learner because adults have been (i.e., the theory of child education) to traditionally taught through the lens of that of andragogy (i.e., the theory of adult pedagogy and may not have been trained education). The practice of andragogy to be self-directed, allowed to be involved in is a good fit for job-embedded staff identifying learning objectives, or provided development models such as instructional the opportunity to immediately apply what coaching. In contrast to child learners, adult they have learned (Knowles, 1984). learners move from postponed application of learning to immediate application of In spite of the possible initial discomfort learning (Knowles, 1980). In the coach’s for some teachers when moved from the former role as a teacher, he or she developed experience of pedagogy to andragogy, the lessons and instructed students in a the coach must understand the negative controlled classroom environment. In implications for continued practice of the role of instructional coach, the coach pedagogy with adults (Knowles, 1984).The develops the lessons collaboratively with the negative implications include compliance or even resistance versus commitment teacher (Hall & Simeral, 2008). to the newly learned strategies, low The coach involves the teacher in identifying implementation rate of newly learned problems that need to be solved in order strategies, abandonment of newly learned to improve student achievement. Involving strategies when the coach is no longer in adult learners in identifying objectives the picture, and attempts to undermine the and procedures is a key instructional coach’s efforts by going to the principal and strategy in the practice of andragogy (Lenz, other teachers.What is a coach to do when 1982). The problems identified through some teachers choose not to get past the collaboration of coach and teacher become feelings of discomfort and continue to resist the subjects to be learned. Learning moves being an active participant in their own jobfrom subject centered to problem-solving embedded learning?

Sink or Swim Together

power is obtained through the teacher’s desire to be close to the instructional coach. Fowler (2004) described the authority that comes with referent power as charismatic authority; this type of authority is “based on purely personal qualities” (p. 32). Charismatic authority can be obtained by some leaders based on a combination of their appearance, personality, and mannerisms (Fowler). To obtain expert power, instructional coaches may need to do some stage setting activities to demonstrate their expertise before they can draw upon expert power (Raven, 1992). If the instructional coach has both referent and expert power, the two forms of power will work in chorus and may yield much influence over teachers.

Instructional coaches may have expert and referent power bases from which to draw; however, there is no guarantee that the coach will yield any influence over changes in teacher behaviors. If the instructional coach has set the stage and established expert power but has negative referent power, a positive change may still take place but the change will most likely be delayed. French and Raven (1959) called this delay in change the sleeper effect. The change occurs after a period of time because the memory of the messenger fades, but the knowledge remains. If the instructional coach is limited to expert centered (Knowles, 1980); the coach and and referent power but does not gain the Swimming in the Deep End the teacher work together in all phases of the learning process as they plan the lesson French and Raven (1959) described five trust and respect of the teachers or set the activity, application of the lesson learned, and types of power that are found in group stage to establish his or her expertise, these settings: reward, coercive, legitimate, referent, two power bases may not yield the intended reflection of the learning process. and expert. All five of the power bases influence required for changes in teacher Traditional staff development models may be available to instructional coaches behaviors (Raven). Legitimate, or jobstructured around pedagogical practices in varying degrees. Instructional coaches, embedded, authority over teachers may yield include commonalities such as content by the very nature of their position, do compliance but not necessarily commitment determined by presenter or principal, not possess job-embedded authority, or to the newly learned instructional strategies. short-term time commitment, no required legitimate power. The bases of power on If instructional coaches are given the role of implementation of the learning, and limited which an instructional coach can draw upon evaluating teachers or rewarding teachers, or no follow-up support (Curry & Killion, are to some extent dependent upon how a these responsibilities may only yield carrot and stick types of experiences that Pink 2009). Some teachers may initially resist the district implements its coaching program. (2009) described as activities that do not change from the experience of pedagogically yield intrinsic motivation and stifle creativity. Some instructional coaches may be limited structured staff development; teachers can exhibit “frustration with this form of to referent and expert power bases from If power is necessary to move resistant professional development that they say which to draw upon. Referent power has the teachers to compliant learners, what tools wasted their time, insulted their intelligence, widest range of influence of all of the power can coaches draw upon to guide compliant and was irrelevant to their daily work” bases (French & Raven, 1959). Referent teachers to be teachers committed to the 22

INSIGHT

need for belongingness will emerge (Maslow, 1970).The instructional coach can affect this stage of motivation as well by facilitating and fostering a professional learning community among groups of teachers that share either students or teaching assignments in common. Coaches can facilitate ongoing Baiting the Hook Human behaviors are organized by group learning opportunities that involve unsatisfied needs (Maslow, 1970). Maslow teachers who teach 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th grade categorized human needs and prioritized math in order to vertically align curriculum them from lowest to highest level: (1) and instruction. Each grade-level teacher physiological needs, (2) safety needs, (3) provides a key piece to the professional belongingness and love needs, (4) esteem dialogue, and this contribution can feed the needs, and (5) need for self-actualization. teachers’ needs for belongingness to a group Just as teachers are faced with a classroom of professionals. comprised of individual students operating on various levels of the hierarchy of needs, Coaches can also affect esteem needs. Esteem coaches are faced with a department filled needs include “receiving praise, having pride with individual teachers operating on and dignity, and confidence in oneself, and various levels of the hierarchy of needs. being important and appreciated” (Jones, In order for a coach to facilitate teachers’ 2004, p. 18). Instructional coaches can changes in behavior, the coach must help help teachers move through this level of move teachers to the self-actualization need by always building upon the strengths stage. “If a person is going to make serious possessed by the teachers. Beginning with behavioral changes, it will most likely occur the strengths of a teacher, versus attention to while in this category…the difficulty is the teacher’s weaknesses, can help preserve getting a person through all four of the his or her pride and dignity. The coach can also take a humble approach to the coachlower categories first” (Jones, 2004, p. 18). teacher relationship to help move the Instructional coaches can have an influence teacher through the esteem stage. in all of the five categories. If employees feel threatened or feel that their jobs are on the The coach-teacher learning relationship line, they may regress from the higher levels is reciprocal (Knight, 2007b); therefore, if of the hierarchy of needs to lower levels the coach acknowledges the lessons learned and become defensive and closed-minded from the teacher, the coach can nurture to new ideas (Maslow, 1970). Instructional the teacher’s self-confidence and feelings coaches must approach teachers in such a of importance. Always giving credit to way that the learning environment feels safe the teacher for the victories of improved to the teachers. Knowles (1984) stated that student achievement will foster a sense of the adult learner is willing to try new things appreciation. When teachers feel they are “to the extent that he is not crippled by fear, valued, their self-esteem increases and to the extent that he feels safe enough to they move to higher levels of motivation dare” (p. 39). Instructional coaches can build (Palczewski, 1999). trust if they are coaching teachers in such a way that does not go against the grain of If a teacher reaches the level of selfthe school or the school’s administration; actualization, the coach can focus completely otherwise, they may risk raising the anxiety on the tasks at hand of increasing student level of teachers. achievement because the teacher will be in the mindset of wanting to be the best When the lower two needs (physiological he or she can be. This need is based on a and safety) are gratified to some extent, the person being true to whoever he or she job-embedded learning experience? An understanding of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory may hold the key for coaches to use in moving teachers to their highest learning experience.

is intrinsically meant to become (Maslow, 1970). Therefore, an understanding of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs will provide coaches with a foundation on which to practice the art of motivating and moving teachers to improved instructional practices.

Life Preservers There is much more to facilitating instruction and leading teachers than just content knowledge and being well versed in research-based instructional practices (Brady, 2007). It would behoove districts to provide training to their newly hired and experienced coaches in the areas of andragogy, sources of power, and motivation techniques. Many novice coaches have had no formal training in these areas that serve as the foundation of instructional leadership (Killion, 2007). Although comprehensions of andragogy, sources of power, and motivation techniques are not typically written into the qualifications section of an instructional coach’s job description, a basic understanding of these areas is crucial for the coach’s success. Most change agents concentrate on their change initiatives without focusing on understanding how the system will react to the change (Senge, 1999). Performing the role of instructional coach without an understanding of the underlying processes and systems interplaying for the adult learner can create an experience, for both teacher and coach, such as swimming in the ocean for the first time without a basic understanding of waves, undercurrents, and sea creatures. Instructional facilitators should be excellent teachers, highly skilled in building relationships, ambitious, and humble (Knight, 2006).According to Knight (2006), coaches must remain professional in their communication and not be careless in their comments about teacher practices that could deter a teacher from working with the facilitator. An effective coach must have the skills to build relationships and work in collaboration with teachers

fall 2012

and administrators as well as the courage to challenge teachers to participate in reflective practice (Barkley, 2005; Carr, Herman, & Harris, 2005).

Keeping Afloat Instructional coaches are tasked with providing job-embedded staff development for teachers with no formal authority to ensure teachers’ cooperation. The coaches are usually not the supervisor or evaluator of teachers, nor do they have control over teacher employment or salary (Hall & Simeral, 2008; Otto, 2009; Warren, 2008). Therefore, by the nature of their position, coaches will most likely have a greater range of influence through the referent and expert power bases (Duke & York-Barr, 2004). However, if instructional coaches work closely with the campus principal, they can draw upon the support of the principal if power is needed in the other power bases (Hall & Simeral). Coaches were asked for recommendations on how to strengthen the working relationship between coach and principal. The coaches reiterated that steps should be taken to ensure that the role of instructional facilitator is well defined and articulated to all parties involved. One coach recommended that school districts make it “very clear to the principals the job responsibilities of an instructional coach. Allow time for the instructional coach and the principal to discuss these responsibilities before school starts.” Coaches expressed the need for administrators and coaches to regularly collaborate on instructional practices and other issues with which the teachers may need help. It is extremely important that the instructional facilitator and the campus principal work as a strong partnership (Hall & Simeral, 2008). This entails respecting clear-cut role boundaries and staying in communication with each other. Once the right facilitators are put in place, the district could further benefit from establishing a cadre or guiding coalition to ensure the 24

INSIGHT

success of the change effort (Schlechty, References 2005). Barkley, S. G. (2005). Quality teaching in a culture of coaching. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Swimming Upstream Successfully Education. The coaches in the earlier shared excerpt f aced overwhelming, unexpected Brady, C. H. (2007). Coaches’ voices bring 6 obstacles—obstacles they had never faced as lessons to light. Journal of Staff Development, classroom teachers. They battled pushback 28(1), 46–49. from the system, resistant teachers, and inadvertently stepping on toes of individuals Carr, J., Herman, N., & Harris, D. (2005). whose job descriptions overlapped theirs. Creating dynamic schools through mentoring, Despite the obstacles, they worked to reduce coaching, and collaboration. Alexandria, VA: the achievement gap between their schools Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Publications. and the schools without coaches whose students performed better historically. Curry, M., & Killion, J. (2009, Winter). Slicing the layers of learning. Journal of Staff Instructional coaches have big jobs; they are Development, 30(1), 56, 58–60, 62. “part coach and part anthropologist, advising teachers on how to contend with the Dobbins, C. (2010). The efficacy of challenges and opportunities they face while math coaching: An evaluative case study. recognizing each school’s unique culture” Dissertation Abstracts International, 71(03). (Knight, 2004, p. 33). A successful change (UMI No. 3396806) agent learns how and why a system reacted to a change, as well as how the change agent Duke, K., & York-Barr, J. (2004, Fall). What contributed to the reaction; he or she can do we know about teacher leadership? then develop a systemic strategy to sustain Findings from two decades of scholarship. the profound change (Senge, 1999).To be an Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255– 316. effective instructional facilitator, a candidate must embody appropriate skills, talents, and Fowler, F. (2004). Policy studies for educational character traits (Brady, 2007; Sheldahl, 2007). leader: An introduction. Upper Saddle River, Otherwise, the position could be akin to NJ: Pearson Education. swimming with sharks. n

Vikki Mahagan is an assistant principal at Sellers Middle School in Garland ISD, and Casey Brown is an associate professor of educational leadership at Texas A&M University– Commerce.

French Jr., J., & Raven, B. (1959). Studies in social power.Ann Arbor, MI: Research Center for Group Dynamics Institute for Social Research. Hall, P., & Simeral,A. (2008). Building teachers’ capacity for success: A collaborative approach for coaches and school leaders. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Publications. Jones, M. (2004, July). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs can lower recidivism. Corrections Today, 66(4), 18–21. Killion, J. (2007).Web of support strengthens the effectiveness of school-based coaches. Journal of Staff Development, 28(1), 10–12, 14–16, 18.

Abstracts International, A60(06). (UMI No. Sheldahl, T. (2007). High school instructional coaches: Where are we now 9935411) and where are we going? Dissertation Abstracts Pink, D. (2009). Drive: The surprising International, 69A(01). (UMI No. 3296191) Knight, J. (2006). Instructional coaching. truth about what motivates us. New York: Simons, M. (2006). The influence of Riverhead Books. School Administrator, 63(4), 36–40. instructional coaches on improving teaching Knight, J. (2007a). Five key points to Raven, B. (1992). A power/interaction and student performance. Dissertation building a coaching program. Journal of Staff model of interpersonal influence: French Abstracts International, 67(11). (UMI No. and Raven thirty years later. Journal of Social 3241388) Development, 28(1), 26–31. Behavior and Personality, 7(2), 217–244. Wall, E. (2009) Instructional coaching and Knight, J. (2007b). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction. Ross, J. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the classroom practice: Dynamic leadership for effects of coaching on student achievement. teacher development. Dissertation Abstracts Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Canadian Journal of Education, 17(1), International,A70(01). (UMI No. 3342439) Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of 51–65. Retrieved November 6, 2010, from Warren, J. (2008). When implementing adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. http://www.jstor.org/stable/14953995 policy gets messy: An analysis of a districtChicago: Follett Publishing. Schlechty, P. (2005). Creating great schools: wide coaching initiative. Dissertation Abstracts Knowles, M. (1984). The adult learner: Six critical systems at the heart of educational International,A69(04). (UMI No. 3310477) A neglected species. Houston, TX: Gulf innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Publishing. Senge, P. (1999). The dance of change: The Lenz, E. (1982). The art of teaching adults. New challenges to sustaining momentum in learning organizations. NewYork: Doubleday. York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Knight, J. (2004). Instructional coaches make progress through partnership. Journal of Staff Development, 25(2), 32–37.

Mahagan, V. (2011). The characteristics of effective secondar y math and science instructional facilitators and the necessary support structures as perceived by practitioners and principals. Texas A&M University–Commerce). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 73(04). (UMI No. 3490606) Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality. NewYork: Harper & Row. Norton, J. (2007, Winter). Adding layers of support: Alabama’s program helps sitebased coaches succeed. Journal of Staff Development, 28(1), 20–25. Otto, T. (2009). A case study: The influence of the Pennsylvania High School Coaching Initiative on the change of teachers’ instructional practices and student achievement. Dissertation Abstracts International,A70(04). (UMI No. 3352436) Palczewski, S. (1999). A study of the relationship between transformational leadership and teacher attitudes. Dissertation

fall 2012

TSPRA VOICE TASA joins TSPRA in supporting the critical role of public information and communications professionals in Texas public schools.

The Schools That Texas Built by Dawn Marie Baletka and Rory Gesch

Smartboards for classrooms. iPads for students. Funding for a teacher and five students

to attend a two-week debate workshop. English classes for the families of bilingual students. A campus-wide subscription of Flocabulary as a supplemental curriculum resource for an elementary school. Kindergarten summer programs to help students become better prepared for the new school year. Etiquette classes for students that are combined with a book study and a field trip for students to eat at a formal restaurant and attend a theatrical production of the book they read (The Color Purple). Class sets of high-interest reading materials. Funding for work-study educational experiences to assist in vocational skills development of special needs students.

Dawn Marie Baletka Executive Director Navasota ISD Education Foundation

All of these projects were funded by a Texas school districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s education foundation. In Texas, education foundations are typically managed by a board of directors made up of community volunteers who raise money to fund innovative, creative, and worthy educational experiences for students that cannot be funded through the traditional budget process. Texas schools are facing financial difficulties that are leading administrators to make some of the hardest decisions they have ever encountered. An exorbitantly high number of school districts have already begun to cut into the core elements of education by not only eliminating teacher positions but also reducing and sometimes even eliminating basic instructional tools and resources.The escalation of financial hardships for school districts has sparked a renewed interest in initiating outside funding sources into schools via education foundations.

Rory Gesch Superintendent Navasota ISD

Starting an Education Foundation. It is important to incorporate the organization as soon as possible. In addition, the development of bylaws and the filing of appropriate forms to be become a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization is also necessary so that the newly formed education foundation can legally accept donations and solicit funds from corporate donors. In establishing an education foundation for a school district, it is very important to identify and gather the correct stakeholders to become the initial board of directors. Search out people in the community to serve who have an interest in making the schools in the district a success. Start with some influential parents, business leaders, bankers, real estate professionals, attorneys,

fall 2012

a means of positive branding and marketing support is as easy as having one-on-one conversations or small group discussions with members where they can (1) have a detailed explanation of the school district’s position; and (2) be equipped with the words and resources necessary to carry the message to the community. If school districts are truly honest with themselves, they will acknowledge that more good will is gained Set a meeting with the key people that have and lost in the grocery store, the parking lot, been identified from the community, and invite members of established education It is imperative to recognize that education and the bank than is every gained or lost in foundations representing school districts in foundations do not use their financial traditional TV, radio, or print media reports. the area (or from those that approximate contributions to dictate curriculum or Sustaining the support of the community the district’s demographics) to assist in projects to the school district. In all cases, is an arduous task; nevertheless, the burden making the initial presentation. Multiple the administrators of the school district is much more manageable when shared by state and national partnering organizations have final say on what programs or projects individuals who hold both influence in local are available to assist in establishing an may or may not be funded.A school district affairs and a dedication to improving and education foundation. The Education traditionally places the superintendent and at seeing public schools succeed. Foundation Division of the Texas School least one other district liaison on the board Public Relations Association (TSPRA) and of directors of the education foundation. Again, Texas schools are facing uncertain the Pioneer Foundation are crucial Texas This enhances a strong working relationship times. A new state assessment leaves schools resources.The National School Foundations between the district’s administrative staff and uncertain. Pending litigation and legislative Association and the American School the foundation and provides guidance for actions have left school finance in a spiral of uncertainty. Ever-changing mandates on Foundations Association give broad national sustainable success. both the state and federal level compound perspectives as well. Education Foundations—More than uncertainty. But, one thing is certain: the Education Foundations and the School Money. Education foundations are fabulous children who come to school each and every District. All education foundations have for raising money to help fund worthy day deserve the best education possible. In an some basic tenets in common, but they projects for public schools. But education effort to strive for excellence in education, also have unique differences. Just as no two foundations can do much, much more than the nursery rhyme The House That Jack Built school districts are exactly alike, no two just ease the burdens of financial uncertainty. comes to mind. Do you remember how it education foundations will be exactly alike. The board of directors of each education starts? “This is the house that Jack built.This Each education foundation must mirror foundation is comprised of 20 to 30 of the is the cheese that lay in the house that Jack the values and priorities of the community most respected and influential people in built. This is the rat that ate the cheese that in which they reside. For instance, many the community. When events that are not lay in the house that Jack built.This is the cat education foundation organizations in Texas flattering or favorable happen within the that chased the rat that ate the cheese that sponsor college scholarships. However, other school district, public relations professionals, lay in the house that Jack built.…” Texas education foundations choose to keep all of administrators, teachers, and staff all work schools mimic The House That Jack Built. the funds they raise within the PK–12 public diligently to mitigate negative consequences. Both the house in the nursery rhyme and school system. There is no right or wrong But each of these individuals is employed Texas schools gain value and true meaning position on this issue. Both of these positions by the school district and, therefore, a only when links are made, both directly and reflect the vision of the communities where shadow of doubt might be cast on their indirectly, to other organizations, things, and n they exist. In the same way, the relationship efforts. When the community hears the people (see p. 29). between the education foundation and the message being reiterated by members of the school administration is unique as well. education foundation, it is more likely to Dawn Marie Baletka is executive director of Some education foundations ask school accept the position being stated. Fortunately, the Navasota ISD Education Foundation districts to identify programs or projects superintendents and the board of directors and director of grant services for Navasota that are in need of funding, and then the for education foundations usually develop a ISD, as well as chairperson for the Education organization commits to supplying a specific relationship of trust over the time they work Foundation Division of TSPRA. Rory Gesch amount of money each year for a designated together. Using the education foundation as is superintendent of Navasota ISD. and members of faith-based organizations. Keep in mind that if the initial group of people has the same basic skills, the resulting organization will not have much depth.The goal for the initial group is to have a variety of people from different professions who have a wide range of skills and knowledge from which to draw.

INSIGHT

length of time to support those programs. Other education foundations use grants to teachers as their only means of transmitting contributions to school districts. As stated before, each education foundation derives its policies and procedures for monetary distributions to school districts through the developmental guidance of the initial board of directors, which serves as the barometer for the local community.

The School That Texas Built This is the School that Texas built! This is the book that lay in the School that Texas built. This is the child that read the book That lay in the School that Texas built. This is the teacher that taught the child That read the book that lay in the School that Texas built. This is the principal that encouraged the teacher That taught the child that read the book That lay in the School that Texas built. This is the parent who needs to be guided That trusts the principal that encouraged the teacher That taught the child that read the book That lay in the School that Texas built. This is the community both whole and divided That often forgets the parent who needs to be guided That trusts the principal that encouraged the teacher That taught the child that read the book That lay in the School that Texas built. This is the Foundation That seeks support of the community both whole and divided That often forgets the parent who needs to be guided That trusts the principal that encouraged the teacher That taught the child that read the book That lay in the School that Texas built.

This is the grant for innovative instruction That came from the Foundation That seeks support of the community both whole and divided That often forgets the parent who needs to be guided That trusts the principal that encouraged the teacher That taught the child that read the book That lay in the School that Texas built. This is the technology available to students That stemmed from the grant for innovative instruction That came from the Foundation That seeks support of the community both whole and divided That often forgets the parent who needs to be guided That trusts the principal that encouraged the teacher That taught the child that read the book That lay in the School that Texas built. This is the doctor saving a life That was possible because of technology available to students That stemmed from the grant for innovative instruction That came from the Foundation That seeks support of the community both whole and divided That often forgets the parent who needs to be guided That trusts the principal that encouraged the teacher That taught the child that read the book That lay in the School that Texas built!

about TSPRA The Texas School Public Relations Association (TSPRA) is a nonprofit, professional organization dedicated to promoting public schools through effective communications. TSPRA, an award winning chapter of the National School Public Relations Association (NSPRA), was chartered in 1962 and incorporated in 1977. With more than 800 members, TSPRA is comprised primarily of public information and communications professionals who serve the public school districts and education organizations of Texas. In 2004, TSPRA opened its membership to education foundation staff and boards that support our public schools. The membership also includes superintendents, school administrators, principals, executive directors, web/technology/electronic media and graphic professionals, school consultants, vendors, and others who support public education in the state.

fall 2012

201 3

Grassroots Campaign

Talk to your legislators! Here are six talking points to share with your local lawmakers. Find more in our Grassroots 2013 materials. Restore funding cuts from 2011 and replace current funding system for schools. Superintendents urge the legislature to restore the $5.4 billion in cuts dealt to school districts last session and replace the current target revenue and hold-harmless system of funding with an adequate and equitable formula-based system for all school districts. Protect TRS and its defined benefit structure. Because of its strength and long-term reliable

performance, the TRS pension plan has remained a stellar example of a strong well-managed plan that serves as an important recruitment and retention tool for public education. But critics of public pension plans are calling on reform. Texas educators are depending on state lawmakers to protect the benefits they’ve earned through years of service and ensure TRS’ continued long-term viability.

Re-examine the public school accountability system in Texas. The high stakes nature of state-mandated tests has resulted in a system that has tied the hands of educators and limited opportunity for engaging student learning experiences that cultivate individual talents. District leaders want to work with lawmakers to develop a system that encompasses multiple assessments, reflects greater validity, uses more cost efficient sampling techniques, and more accurately reflects what students know.

Restore 2011 funding cuts to Education Service Centers. In 2011, lawmakers cut $15 million from the Education Service Centers’ budgets and some are calling for eliminating them completely. Local ESCs provide valuable and necessary services for school districts at a lower cost from what they would pay elsewhere. ESCs can’t survive more cuts, and districts depend on them for crucial services. Ensure districts have discretionary funds. In order to meet local community needs, school boards must have “meaningful discretion” in the levying of taxes and the allocation of funding beyond what is required by the state. District leaders want the legislature to ensure state requirements don’t infringe upon the use of local discretionary funds. Return tax dollars created by value growth to public education. Currently, the state retains the

majority of revenue generated from increased property taxes resulting from rising local property values and new growth. When taxes on new growth and rising property values increase, the state’s share of funding for education decreases. Taxpayers pay these increased taxes with the expectation that public schools are the beneficiary. Superintendents urge the legislature to return this money to the public school system for the benefit of all public schools.

INSIGHT

201 3

Grassroots Campaign

Talking Points Debunking the myth that Texas public schools employ too many people According to the Legislative Budget Board, Texas had 273 employees for every 10,000 students in 2011. That’s substantially higher than California, which had 193 employees per 10,000 students. Some lawmakers have pointed to that and intimated that if California can get by with fewer people, why can’t we?

Here are some talking points that explain Texas’ unique situation. n

Yes, we do have more employees per student than California. The answer is largely due to our sheer geographical size and the fact that so much of Texas is sparsely populated, making small schools a necessity. Smaller schools are more expensive to operate per student than large schools. That’s just an economic fact.

For example, Texas has only nine high schools in the entire state with a population of 3,500 or more. And only four of those schools—Elsik High and Hastings High, both in Alief ISD; North Shore Senior High in Galena Park ISD; and Skyline High in Dallas ISD—are north of the 4,000-student mark. Meanwhile, in Los Angeles County alone, there are 13 schools with more than 4,000 students and many of those approaching 5,000 students.

The total number of schools in California is 9,855, with a student population of about 6.2 million students. That means an average school enrollment of 628. Texas has 8,342 schools for 4.7 million students. That’s an average school enrollment of 577. But you really see what makes Texas different if you break the average enrollment numbers up by school size. Here’s the average number of students per school in districts based on size: 50,000 students and higher: 25,000–49,999 students: 10,000–24,999 students: 5,000–9,999 students: 3,000–4,999 students: 1,600–2,999 students: 1,000–1,599 students: 500–999 students: Under 500 students:

average school size 765 average school size 798 average school size 681 average school size 631 average school size 530 average school size 438 average school size 323 average school size 230 average school size 152

Those numbers make it easy to see the economy of scale. And in Texas, where so many districts are geographically large and rural, 1.3 million kids attend school in districts of 10,000 students or less.

While Texas has more employees than California, a higher percentage of those employees are classroom teachers. While 50 percent of Texas public school employees are teachers, that number is 46 percent in California.

Our demographics, geography, and population are beyond school districts’ control. Public school leaders are doing their best to provide Texas schoolchildren with what they need to succeed. And what Texas students need is not necessarily the same thing students in Oklahoma, Arizona, or even California need. Education isn’t one size fits all.

fall 2012

201 3

Grassroots Campaign

Talking Points Any way you slice it, schools are losing funding School district leaders, the mainstream media, and Texans at large all seem to understand that the Texas Legislature cut funding for public education during the legislative session this year. For the 2012–13 biennium, school districts are dealing with a $4 billion cut in per-student funding and an additional $1.4 billion cut to grant programs that funded education initiatives. Still, ever since the legislative session ended in 2011 some lawmakers and others have persisted in making the claim that public education actually saw an increase in funding. They’ve based those claims on comparing bienniumto-biennium numbers, not taking into account the fact that Texas school districts will serve an additional 170,000 students over the next two years.

Here are some clear-cut points to make if faced with that argument: n

According to the Legislative Budget Board, General Revenue Funds for education total $51.2 billion for the 2012–13 biennium, an increase of $1.8 billion, or 3.7 percent from 2010–11. (This is what those who are claiming an increase in spending are relying on.) However, Texas also lost an additional $3 billion of one-time federal stimulus funding. But that money, provided in 2009, wasn’t above and beyond what the state provided for education. Though the state was supposed to use that onetime infusion to supplement education funding, legislators chose to supplant state funding and use it for reoccurring expenses, taking $3 billion of state funding out of education and putting it in the state’s Rainy Day Fund. Now that the money is gone, it’s equivalent to an additional $3 billion cut in state funding. The important thing to remember about the increase from biennium to biennium is that Texas public schools will serve 170,000 more students in the next two years than they did in 2010 and 2011. The budget actually fell short of funding individual students by $4 billion. Those students will need classrooms, teachers, instructional materials, and technology. They’ll need bus transportation to school, a healthy breakfast and lunch, and someone to help them register at the front office or take care of them when they’re sick. Some will need support from specialists because they have developmental delays or disabilities, or they don’t speak English. Looking at the cuts on a per-student basis is the only realistic way to build a budget.

INSIGHT

On top of the $4 billion loss in per-student funding, lawmakers also cut $1.4 billion for critical education programs like Communities in Schools, Texas School Ready Program, and T-STEM. The Texas Education Agency’s budget was slashed by 36 percent, drastically affecting the agency’s ability to provide crucial services to school districts.

Those who want to make public schools look like the bad guys can cherry pick the stats all they want, but those in charge of school district budgets know the truth. Districts across the state are reeling from significant budget cuts this year and many will see a greater cut next year.

The Texas House of Representatives’ House Research Organization released its report on the Texas budget in December. The HRO numbers paint a clearer picture of the state of the budget than the LBB numbers. The report says that the fiscal 2012–13 budget appropriates $50.8 billion in all funds to public education agencies, including the Texas Education Agency, the Teacher Retirement System, the School for the Blind and Visually Impaired, and the School for the Deaf. Appropriations in all funds represent a decrease of about $3 billion, or 5.6 percent, from fiscal 2010– 11 spending. Of the $50.8 billion, $47 billion was appropriated to TEA—a $4.4 billion decrease from 2010–11. There was also a $1 billion decrease to appropriations to the Foundation School Program for 2012–13.

According to a survey released this year by the U.S. Census, Texas spends an average of $8,540 per student, ranking 42nd in the country. The only states that spend less than Texas are Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Mississippi, Nevada, and South Dakota. The report also found that Texas spent less per student than any other state on employee benefits. The per-pupil average in Texas was $1,005 compared to $2,263 nationally. And this ranking was pre-budget cuts. Imagine where we may rank next year.

Contrary to what some critics of public education like to insist, leaders of Texas public schools aren’t interested in squandering taxpayer money and investing in programs that don’t benefit kids. What they are focused on is providing a worldclass education for the children of Texas and preparing them for college and the workforce. That takes money, especially at a time when the state’s population is growing and shifting, with the majority of incoming students labeled at-risk for a variety of factors. Investing wisely in education will only boost Texas economy and ensure a brighter future for everyone in the state. That should be something we can all agree on.

Student-Centered Schools • Future-Ready Students Mission: School Transformation

Is your district ready to transform Texas public education? As of mid-August, 710 school boards across Texas have said “Yes!” by adopting TASA’s Resolution Concerning High-Stakes Standardized Testing of Texas Public School Students. Now they’re taking the next step by joining TASA’s School Transformation Network. STN districts are shaping the future of Texas public education through meaningful collaboration on and development of innovative, next-generation learning standards and assessment and accountability systems for Texas public schools. Texas is poised to lead the nation into a new era of public education where schools foster innovation, creativity, and a thirst for learning and students become active, engaged contributors to their global, digital world. Please join us in our urgent mission.

www.transformtexas.org

fall 2012

PRESIDENT’S CIRCLE

Corporate Partners TASA is grateful to our corporate partners for their support.

Each level of the Corporate Partner Program is designed to offer our partners quality exposure to association members. Partners at the President’s Circle, Platinum, and Gold levels may customize special events and opportunities.

PLATINUM

GOLD

SILVER

BRONZE http://tasa.cms.memberfuse.com/become-a-tasa-corporate-partner

Apple CHEVRON College Board Common Sense Media Dell Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Northwest Evaluation Association–NWEA Pearson SHW Group SMART Technologies CompassLearning Indeco Sales, Inc. K12 Insight Milliken Design, Inc. Organizational Health Scholastic Scientific Learning Cisco Creating & Managing Wealth, LLC Discovery Education Health Matters Huckabee Learning Together Company PBK The JASON Project Think Through Math

Balfour Reasoning Mind Renaissance Learning TCG Consulting Wireless Generation Education2020 eInstruction FirstSouthwest MindMixer National Math and Science Initiative NextEra Energy Solutions Promethean Psychological Software Solutions, Inc. School Innovations and Advocacy Sodexo Southern Management ABM SureScore

Texas Association of School Administrators

Presorted Standard U.S. Postage PAID Austin, TX Permit No. 1941

406 East 11th Street Austin, TX 78701-2617

We stand by our commitment to Texas public schools. The Lone Star Investment Pool was created in 1991 with public schools in mind. As a subsidiary of TASB, we understand the unique challenges school districts face when it comes to investment issues. Thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s why more than 700 schools in the state rely on our services. Distributed by

To obtain a free analysis of your investment and financing needs, call us today. 800.558.8875 â&#x20AC;˘ firstpublic.com