DISPOSICIONES FINALES

and the executive director for Academic Services develop a process by which funds are allocated to the District

Improvement Plan.

September- October 2000

2. The executive directors review the process with the

superintendent and develop a process by which each school can apply the same approach to its CIP.

October- December 2000 3. The executive directors meet with each principal to discuss

the approach and receive comments and modifications, and finalize the process and present it to the superintendent for approval.

January-

February 2001

4. The superintendent approves the process and recommends it for approval to the board.

February 2001

5. The board approves the process and directs the superintendent to implement it.

February 2001

6. The superintendent directs the executive directors to initiate the process.

February 2001 and ongoing FISCAL IMPACT

This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources. FINDING

EISD lacks a specific SBDM policy and guidelines that delegate decision- making responsibilities among the schools, administrators, teachers and school board. The current policy is broad and vague (Exhibit 1-7). No operating guidelines have been written or shared with EISD staff and district and campus committee members to define responsibilities.

Exhibit 1-7

EISD Site-Based Decision-Making Policy

Section Description

District mission, goals, objectives and campus objectives

The board shall approve and periodically review the district's mission and goals to improve student

performance. The mission, goals and approved district and campus objectives shall be mutually supportive and shall support the state goals and objectives under Education Code, Chapter 4.

District improvement process

The district's planning process to improve student performance includes the development of the district's educational goals, the legal requirements for the district and campus improvement plans, all pertinent federal planning requirements and administrative procedures. The board shall approve the process under which the educational goals are developed and shall ensure that input is gathered from the district- level committee.

Administrative procedures and reports

The board shall ensure that administrative procedures meet legal requirements in planning, budgeting, curriculum, staffing patterns, staff development and school

organization; adequately reflect the district's planning process; and include implementation guidelines, time frames and necessary resources. The superintendent shall report periodically to the board on the status of the planning process including a review of the related administrative procedures, any revisions to improve the process and progress on implementation of identified strategies.

Evaluation The board shall ensure that data is gathered and criteria are developed to undertake the required biennial evaluation to ensure that policies, procedures and staff activities related to planning and decision making are effectively structured to positively affect student performance.

Source: EISD Board Policy Manual.

Since the adoption of the SBDM policy in 1996, three superintendents have served on either a permanent or interim basis. Lacking a continuity in leadership, no district advisory committee (DAC) meetings were held during the six months prior to the current superintendent assuming his responsibilities.

The superintendent met with the 28- member district advisory committee in Spring 1999. During 1999-2000, the DAC met three times. The superintendent said the DAC is too large, and plans to reduce the size within the framework of TEA Code requirements. Instead, the

superintendent has chosen to meet with group s or committees for specific purposes, such as:

• Hiring committees for executive director, principal and assistant principal positions, as necessary;

• Representatives of teacher groups monthly;

• Paraprofessional salary study committee, as necessary, on recommendations for the budget;

• Professional salary study committee, as necessary, on recommendations for the budget; and

• Insurance committee, as necessary, to discuss changes in vendors and other coverage provisions.

When the DAC was asked to provide input, teachers and parents serving on the district advisory committee said they were frustrated with the board's lack of response or feedback. For example, in Spring 1999, the committee was asked to develop a proposed calendar for the 1999-2000 school year. With input from campus committees, the district committee developed and recommended a proposed calendar to the board. The board developed its own calendar, never acknowledged the work of the

committee and never provided an explanation to the committees for its action on the calendar. Committee members understood the board's authority as the final decision maker; however, they are unwilling to accept no response or an absence of explanations when the committees have been acting in good faith and according to board policy.

In 1999-2000, no DAC meetings were held until April 2000, prior to an evaluation visit by the TEA of the Bastrop County Special Education Cooperative, of which EISD is a member. One principal called the function of the DAC during 1999-2000 as "bare bones." The DAC served only at the superintendent's request and met only to fulfill minimum requirements, such as approving a student code of conduct and revising the district improvement plan.

Principals chair the committees on each campus and guide and facilitate discussions. Only at the high school was the site-based committee viewed as effective by the principal and committee members. The key issue was scheduling. The DAC adopted a block schedule over the objection of the superintendent, implemented it for 1999-2000, and at the end of the year recommended a return to an accelerated block schedule.

At the other campuses, principals viewed the committees as either moderately effective or not effective at all. At the primary school, the committee recommended that when the new high school is occupied and the other schools shift facilities, the primary school remain for pre- Kindergarten through third grade. However, since the school is

overcrowded with that many grades, the recommendation was not taken, and third grade will be shifted to the elementary school. This leaves the primary campus with no TAAS grade level for accountability.

At the elementary school, the committee was viewed as unsuccessful for several reasons. First, the committee met at 4:00 p.m., which meant there

was a consistent lack of parent participation. Second, there was no leadership from the principal, and committee members indicated that nothing was accomplished. Third, teachers became disillusioned because they realized that the committee's role was only advisory.

At the middle school, the committee was viewed by the principal and other staff members as comprised of people who had an interest in one particular program and not in overall student achievement in the school. Little was accomplished, and some members of the committee indicated that dissension was so bad that members of the committee were actually verbally abused by other committee members and faculty for not

supporting specific initiatives.

Some principals suggested that the committees should not be chaired by the principal. They felt that this interfered with open dialogue and, possibly intimidated some faculty members from fully expressing their viewpoints.

Teachers and parents suggested that minutes be taken and distributed following the meetings (either by putting copies in individual staff member boxes at the school or by mail to non-school committee

members). They recommended that the minutes be distributed not only to committee members but to all staff members, and that decisions made by the committee be tracked with respect to implementation. They also suggested that a more formal communication process be developed and used by district- and campus- level committees.

Members of both the DAC and the campus committees said the decision- making process and committee roles and responsibilities need to be clarified for the committees to be useful. They also said that central staff worked with the committees in an authoritarian manner, reflecting a top- down management style that provided limited opportunity for input and legitimate involvement in matters that directly affect them.

Specific comments from committee members included:

• The present, harsh dictates from the top school administration have caused the loss of many great teachers;

• The superintendent has made many improvements since he has been on board; however, he is somewhat heavy-handed at time;

• Lack of communication within the district;

• The school board does not take seriously the recommendations of the site-based committees;

• Teachers feel frustrated by a lack of input into policies; and

Shared responsibility and mutual respect are critical components to a healthy, productive and efficient organization. The district and campus committees provide such an option. These committees can have a powerful impact on school district climate and teacher and staff morale. Some districts have addressed the problem of clarification of roles and responsibilities by creating a model that assigns responsibility at each level for providing input, offering recommendations, making decisions and giving approval. Exhibit 1-8 provides an example of the Spring Branch ISD SBDM model.

Exhibit 1-8

Partial Site-Based Decision-Making Model Spring Branch Independent School District

Function School Principal Central Office Superintendent School Board Campus Advisory Teams

Goal setting: Develop

campus improvement plan.

D R R A I

Personnel: Make final

recommendation for the selection of new personnel and assignment of new and current campus staff

D R

Budget : Determine

use of campus

allocations for special populations programs.

D I A I

Source: Spring Branch Independent School District Model for Increasing School Effectiveness

Through More Campus-based Decision-making. I=Input: share/provide information/advise D=Decide: make a choice/judgment

R=Recommend: to present as worthy of acceptance A=Approve: give formal/official sanction

EISD needs to update its district- level and SBDM policy and guidelines that delegate decision-making responsibilities between and among the schools, administrators, teachers and the school board.

Recommendation 3:

Create a district-level, site-based decision-making model assigning specific responsibilities for decision making to the district advisory committee, the school staff, campus committees, administrators and the board.

Campus committees should evaluate rotating the chair of the committee among teacher and parent representatives and using the principal as a de facto member of the committee and a resource for information.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE