Comparing+District+Improvement+Plans

As I reviewed the district improvement plans for Grand Prairie ISD and Austin ISD, I noticed a distinct difference in how the two plans were put together. Grand Prairie's plan was very easy to follow with 7 specific goals: Austin ISD's plan outlined a long-range Strategic Plan involving goals for student performance, which equates to the district and campus "performance objectives" required in state statue. Two important areas of their DIP involved their Comprehensive System for Continuous Improvement and the Strategic Action Plan. Another major component of the Austin ISD's DIP was the grant entitled ACCESS - Austin Community Collaboration to Enhance Student Success. A new component of ACCESS that the district is rolling out is YSM - Youth Service Mapping. This system is designed as a tool to help educators, service providers, planners, and policy makers indentify where services are located, and gaps or overlaps in services that may suggest ways to strategically align resources to meet student needs.
 * 1) Parents and community members will be full partners with educators in the education of GPISD students. (Desired result - more parent and community participation with the district tracking activities and attendance of volunteers.)
 * 2) Students will demonstrate exemplary performance in comparison to national and international standards in the areas of reading and writing of the English Language and in the understanding of mathematics, science, and social studies. (Desired result - increase instructional time by raising student attendance to the exemplary level of 98%.)
 * 3) Students will be encouraged and challenged to meet their full educational potential, with a well-balanced and appropriate curriculum provided to all students. (Desired result - GPISD will coordinate efforts between the departments of Teaching and Learning, Staff Development, and Instructional Technology to increase the CSCOPE effective lesson plan database by 10% annually.)
 * 4) Through enhanced dropout prevention efforts, all students will remain in school until they obtain a high school diploma. (Desired result - GPISD will provide communication and training based on improved data regarding students at-risk of dropping out of school.)
 * 5) Qualified and highly effective personnel will be recruited, developed, and retained. (Desired result - GPISD will document a staff development plan that addresses compliance with certifications, advanced degrees, instructional technology applications and the relationship capacity necessary for effective teaching and learning.)
 * 6) Technology will be implemented and used to increase the effectiveness of student learning, instructional management, staff development, and administration. (Desired result - GPISD will increase STaR ratings in the Leadership, Administration, and Instructional Support category to Advanced Technology for 100% of campuses.)
 * 7) GPISD will continue to develop and maintain a safe and disciplined environment conducive to teaching and learning.(Desired result - GPISD will implement curriculum and student activities to address behavioral issues through curriculum regarding citizenship for a free enterprise society, a coordinated school health program, anti-bullying and the prevention of domestic and dating violence.)

Key funding sources for GPISD for the 7 identified goals are the 199 General Fund, Technology Funds (6600), and our SCE funds. As much as 40% of the total student population of GPISD show one or more at-risk designations. The 7 goals outlined by GPISD's DIP are all geared toward targeting our large at-risk population and doing everything with our resources to make sure that these students are successful. Our campus ratings show that we are doing a very good job in many places with over 60% of our schools having a campus rating of "Exemplary" or "Recognized." Austin ISD's DIP was a little harder for me to follow in relation to goals and funding. I saw several figures related to the ACCESS program and budgeted amounts for different areas. I couldn't really find other budgeted areas that were addressed.

The differences I saw in the two plans involved the goals and funding. GPISD had all funding sources listed with each goal and one or more performance objectives tied to each goal. Austin ISD mainly addressed their ACCESS program and budgeted items for this plan. Similarities in the plans were addressing dropout rates/prevention, at-risk students, and parental/community involvement. The involvement of all stakeholders is a focus that all successful districts must be actively pursuing.