Austin+ISD+vs+Dayton+ISD+DIP

While comparing Austin ISD’s Improvement Plan with our district’s plan I noticed a lot of differences between the two. The Austin I.S.D Improvement Plan had a large amount of introductory information including the attendance and notes from the District Advisory meetings. The Austin DIP also has much more focus on the budget in their plan in detailed sections than ours, Appendix A. Our district plan does not really address budget issues in a separated, detailed section. Our plan has nothing even similar to Appendix A in the Austin plan. Our plan is very basic and consists of a table of goals and looks very similar to Appendix B in the Austin plan. Our goals are very specific and it shows our focus for needed improvement. In regards to the funding sources and how they support various goals, I did not see much evidence of that at all in our plan. There are a few places where it states where the funding is coming from, but not in most places. The Austin ISD plan was much more budget-oriented, but it also did not clearly spell out where all of the money was going to specifically. Appendix A shows where the larger amounts are going, but it did not break it down by each category. Overall, the Austin ISD District Improvement Plan is more detailed and has a more clear focus with the budget, but I still like our plan more because it focuses on specific goals and areas of concern. I wish our plan was more detailed with budget issues. I think a combination of the two documents would be a great plan. When we finalize our campus plan in a few weeks, I hope to incorporate some of this information into the plan to make our budget more goal-driven.

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

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

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

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

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

Part 4 Comparing District Improvements and Importance of Funding

In careful review of the comparison of Austin ISD District Improvement Plan to Beaumont ISD there are considerable differences, yet there were a few similarities notes in the plans. Both plans reflect introductions and A Comprehensive Plan System for Continuous Improvement. It is evident that both plans are developed to implement continuous student improvement. Both plans include models that identify goals and strategies to meet the needs of student improvement which must stated in the plans.

The layouts of both plans are uniquely different. In viewing the documents AISD included an Alignment flow chart that identified three major long range goals attached to strategic activities. Our long range goals are created in a template with sub heading to identify the responsible personnel, costs, funding sources, proficiency level, specific measurements, and formative evaluation dates of the strategic activities. Another noted difference is the layout of the calendar in both plans. AISD models membership and attendance records. Our calendar describes by months district professional development activities for the school community, as well as testing information.

In appendix A and B of AISD the SCE’s a few of programs are similar; AVID, Curriculum Specialists, Tutorials, Guidance and Counseling. External Grant/ Federal Funds that were similar are Title I Part A, Title II A, IDEA B. Austin models the funds lumped in one total, but list the special programs that will receive funds. Our plans format shows an at a glance view of the funding sources, costs, and strategic activities with the specific goals for each measureable objective for the Strategic Long Range Goals. I found Austin’s plan to include more budget update information and specifics about ACCESS. The goals for site visits include narrative dialogue and questions and concerns with decision statements.

Based on the needs assessment of the districts both plans are specific and detailed in addressing the areas of concern to ensure that student improvement is achieved.

Submitted by:

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Marilyn Pace-White