The difference between my district’s improvement plan and the AISD’s improve plan is vast. AISD Has set up there document to include how the process was arrived at with links to go to specific components while SISD starts with a clear vision and mission followed by three goals from which the entire plan stems from. Each goal is then broken down by objectives and sub-objectives that show who is responsible, clear timelines, funds to pay for it, indicators showing implementation and effect, as well as formative and summative evaluation for each. AISD has some of the same indicators, but is not consistent with the systematic reporting. This really opened my eyes about the way such a document can be organized to become a useful tool in driving the budget.
EDLD 5342 Week 1-Assignment 1, Part 4
Some major differences between the AISD District Improve Plan and the Socorro ISD District Improvement Plan are 1) format, 2) clarification of district goals, 3) how budgeted funds are displayed and organized and, 5) correlation of goal-programs and budget.
The AISD plan details each part of the process, including reflection questions, in a document that has many links to outside reports of different committees. The Socorro District Improvement Plan is organized very differently. First it lists the district vision and mission statement, then the board of trustees. After a short description of the logistics of the district, three goals for district improvement are set forth. Everything in the document relates to one of these three goals:
1) SISD will improve student performance in all assessed areas to ensure all students are prepared to graduate college or career ready.
2) SISD will provide service and benefits to attract, retain and guarantee growth opportunities to ensure a highly qualified staff.
3) SISD will provide active parent and community engagement in the education process to improve student achievement.
The fact that SISD establishes comprehensive goals that everything flows from makes the plan easy to follow and understand, as well as provides a clear path for measurement and correlation with budget items. AISD’s plan while trying to be comprehensive, has the appearance of many components being cobbled together rather than starting from a clear premise. Different memos are inserted into the document making it informative on specific programs without an overall sense of direction.
After goals are defined in the SISD plan, an assessment of strengths and programs under each goal is summarized. At that point budget funding from different sources are listed. Starting with the State Budget, the State Compensatory Education Budget follows, then the Title I Budget, Title II & III Budget, Education Jobs Bill Budget, and ARRA Budget. At this point, a matrix breaking down each goal into objectives and sub-objectives appears showing the strategy/activity, person(s) responsible, timeline, funding source, evidence of implementation, evidence of impact, formative evaluation and summative evaluation for each. It is very clear how each objective and sub-objective is funded and how the effectiveness will be measured. All of these are tied together throughout the rest of the document.
The AISD document is very detailed with the process which was used. Budget monies are not separated into categories as to where the money has come from. A valuable matrix shows original budget numbers and how those change in a year with percentages for 11 budget areas. Also included are community bulletins and checklists. Toward the last eight pages of the 53 page document, is a set of appendices. The State Compensatory Budget has components listed, but not broken down. Only the total of $37.6 million is shown. External grants are also listed to show $107 million, but not broken down. The last seven pages of the document have a matrix for the NCLB Monitoring System with the following categories: 1) desired result, Measurable evidence, activities, resources, and timelines with only one goal listed.
No comments:
Post a Comment