Summary of Content
The Texas Institute for School Boards is an annual seminar for newly elected board members from the 43 largest districts in Texas . The mission of the institute is to improve the governance and leadership for reform of Texas urban school boards.
Twenty-six school board members and four superintendents participated in the fifth annual Texas Institute. Collectively, these district and community leaders represent 16 school districts and nearly one million students in Texas . A professional evaluator selected to measure the impact of the Texas Institute, as well as representatives from The University of Texas at Austin and the Texas High School Project observed the program.
he 2006 Texas Institute included four case studies, four Reform Governance sessions, and an update on Texas education policy. A “Commitments to Action” session provided fellows an opportunity to reflect on what they learned and begin to plan the next steps for their districts. A summary of each curriculum element follows.
CASE STUDIES
A case study is a real-life situation embedded with problems. The Texas Institute curriculum is essentially designed around case study discussion. Fellows were asked to read several cases, probe the problems the cases present, and propose solutions. The cases describe actual events that are typical of the challenges that urban school boards face.
Case teaching enhances fellows' analytical and problem solving skills. Through case discussion, fellows analyze specific situations that take place in complicated institutional and cultural settings. Fellows get an opportunity to consider how these problems arose and debate possible solutions in a safe environment. After repeated exposure to case teaching, fellows are better able to solve complicated problems when confronted with them in their districts.
The 2006 Texas Institute featured case studies from Dallas Independent School District, Ysleta Independent School District, Aldine Independent School District, and Tyler Independent School District .
Dallas
This case tells the story of the Dallas school board's search for an effective superintendent. When the case begins, the school had just fired Waldemar “Bill” Rojas, the district's fifth superintendent in a four-year period. Rojas was a nationally recognized educator recruited from California , but his job in Dallas lasted only 11 months.
This case describes how the school board selected Rojas as its superintendent and the relationship that developed between Rojas and the Dallas school board trustees. The case then goes on to describe how the school board hired its next superintendent, Mike Moses, using a different selection process than the one it used when it selected Rojas.
Key questions addressed for this case included:
• How did the Moses selection process differ from the Rojas selection process?
• Why was the Rojas administration unsuccessful?
• What options did the board have when it hired Moses?
Ysleta
The Ysleta case is about a highly dysfunctional board that divests itself of community trust and support. The board saddles the district with terrific leadership turnover, and it appears funds are not well spent. Student achievement, actually, is admirable—so the students remain somewhat insulated from the board's antics. But by 2001, the quality of board leadership and governance in Ysleta appears to be improving. With the change of a few board seats and the impact of a few important decisions, the district's reputation is on the mend—and the board seems to be leading the way. Key questions addressed for this case included:
• How did things get so bad in Ysleta?
• What do you conclude about the fact that the board fires a superintendent who oversees dramatic improvements in student achievement?
• Where are the critical decision points in the case that, if handled differently, could have stabilized the situation in Ysleta earlier?
• How risky was it to run for the board in 2001? Why did those individuals do it?
• How did the 2001-2003 board change the culture of the board?
• Do you think they changed the culture of the district? If so, how?
Aldine
This case is about rapid improvements in student achievement at Aldine ISD. In Aldine, the board and superintendent worked together to focus on instruction. The focus was sharp and unrelenting, and in just a few years, Aldine made significant improvements. Key questions addressed for this case included:
• What is Aldine doing differently from other districts?
• Is it the strategy or the people that makes the difference?
• What is the main reason for Aldine's improvement?
• Does this board do things differently than in other districts?
• How do you account for the minimal resistance of the Aldine workforce to the changes?
• What do you think about Aldine's use of multiple assessments?
Tyler
The Tyler Independent School District board learns the importance of developing and maintaining civic capacity after the community votes down a much needed bond election. The district broke its tradition of promoting superintendents from within, using an external agency to find current superintendent David Simmons. Simmons reached out to the community and its leaders; the board followed suit. The board also underwent operations training and focused on improving board relations and increasing student achievement. As a result, the once outraged community worked with the board to ensure the success of a second bond election.
Key questions addressed for this case included:
• What impact did the new Texas accountability system enacted in 1992 have on Tyler ISD?
• What does the choice of Donald Gentry as superintendent in the late 1990s tell you about the Tyler school board at that time?
• Do you think it's possible for a board experiencing significant turnover year after year to launch and sustain a successful reform initiative? What can board members do to prevent (or address) the uncertainty about roles and relationships that characterized the Tyler board at the beginning of this case study?
• Why did the board decide to “go whole hog” in the first bond election, against the recommendations they had been given? What lessons did they learn from the ensuing election?
• In your opinion, what changes that occurred between 2002 and 2004 were most significant in determining the success of the second bond election?
• Near the end of the case, after the 2004 bond election victory, Andy Bergfeld comments: “We won't lose this political capital overnight, but a few slip ups and we can definitely lose it.” What can you do as a board member to sustain community support over the long term?
Texas Education Policy Update
The goal of the Texas Education Policy Update was to provide fellows with a succinct introduction to major education policy issues and changes in legislation. Texas Commissioner of Education Shirley Neeley delivered the Texas Education Policy Update. Neeley provided a brief overview of the legislative session and implications of the recently passed House Bill 1. Fellows asked questions about the finite points of this new legislation, including some of the items that did not pass, and the effects current education issues have on their districts.
REFORM GOVERNANCE
Reform Governance is a comprehensive theory and conceptual framework for urban school boards committed to effective and efficient district operations, high achievement for all children, and the elimination of the achievement gap.
Reform Governance provides a conceptual framework that brings all the work of a reform board into a coherent whole, built around the belief that fine tuning school districts as they presently exist will not achieve the results desired, that urban districts must be redesigned, and that urban districts cannot be redesigned without the active leadership of school boards.
The complete framework is diagrammed below:
The 2006 Texas Institute focused on four components of Reform Governance: Core Beliefs and Commitments; Theories of Action for Change; Roles, Responsibilities, and Relationships; and Building Blocks of Reform Governance. The Reform Governance discussions are designed to help fellows interpret case studies in the context of a broader theoretical framework. This understanding is essential for fellows to convert the case-based learning into plans and strategies for their own districts.
COMMITMENTS TO ACTION
The Commitments to Action session provided fellows with an opportunity to reflect on what they learned at the institute, apply these learnings to their districts, and prepare for re-entry. Fellows were asked to plan how to best present these ideas to their full boards by brainstorming communication strategies and developing re-entry talking points. Fellows then wrote letters to themselves about the impact of the institute learning, personal commitment to improving student achievement in their districts, and anticipated challenges. In six months, we will mail the letters to fellows as a reminder of their personal and professional commitments to reform leadership.
INSTITUTE ARC
We carefully created a schedule that guided fellows from tactical decisions (hiring a superintendent in the Dallas case) to the strategic (establishing a theory of action for change and developing policies that are consistent with that theory, as illustrated in the Aldine case).
The institute launched with a group activity called Group Resume, which set a tone of camaraderie for the program and required participation from everyone. The Reform Governance framework was introduced at the beginning of the institute and fleshed out in four detailed lectures. We explicitly analyzed the case studies in terms of Reform Governance, modeling how a theoretical framework can be applied to the governance process.
The Texas Education Policy Update provided practical knowledge and resources for additional follow-up in the area of policy. Small group meetings were used throughout the institute to help fellows prepare for case studies. Members of small groups were rotated at each meeting to encourage fellows to develop their network of school board members across Texas .
Our goal was for all of these parts to add up to more than the whole—such that a four-day institute would significantly enhance board members' understanding of their responsibility to lead reform in each of their districts. Our evaluation results indicate success; we will follow up with all participating districts to see how the Texas Institute has, in fact, taken hold.
|
