David Warren Drs.

Arterbury and Nicks EDLD 5342 School Finance April 2014 School Finance and the District Improvement Plan: A Comparison of Statewide and Local Examples A comparison between recent versions of the Austin ISD District Improvement Plan (state example) and the McKinney ISD District Improvement Plan (local level) reveals many similarities and a few differences. The provided copy of the 2010-11 Austin ISD plan shows similarities to the most recent McKinney ISD plan (2013-2014) in that specific goals are named for district improvement. These goals are not simply stated, but are justified as necessary through research and data that is references within the respective documents. Furthermore, the goals and plans are each framed within the context of other plans, such as referenced strategic plans, campus plans, and other linked documents. With regard to the goals themselves, the districts are similar to one another in that they reference additional information to inform the public that a plan exists for the completion of respective goals. For Austin ISD this additional information includes tracking of how measureable change is observed; what activities are underway to support the larger goal; what resources, funds, and personnel are in place to support goal achievement; and a stated timeline for checkpoint and goal achievement. Similarly, McKinney ISD states explicit goals and additional information to provide evidence of goal feasibility and completion. This information includes performance objectives for each goal to name specific evidence of how goal completion will look. A strategy description is also included to show what actions are necessary to achieve each performance objective. Specific staff members are required to be named in an effort to promote specific accountability for goal completion. Evidence that goals are being completed must be named to show progress, and a quarterly timeline is given to show what degree of progress has been attained. Differences between the two districts seem to be in the layout of the accountability template, the degree to which the template has been completed, and the way in which timely progress is documented. For Austin ISD, a timeline is given, but there is a lack of documentation clearly showing the actual progress at regular intervals. For McKinney ISD there is tracking of progress completion at regular intervals, but explicit goal completion dates are not explicitly stated. Both plans reference financial support for the completion of specific plan goals. Austin ISD goes into greater detail in the context of connecting funds to plan action items, but does not show itemized amounts for state compensatory funds, only the total.

McKinney ISD does show the total amount for state compensatory funds as well as itemized amounts. McKinney does not show grant totals and federal funds totals like Austin ISD does, but it does reference Title I awards. Austin ISD connects funds to goals formed in relationship to the Performance Based Monitoring Analysis System and to No Child Left Behind. Austin even has a specific prompt to address the instance of what to do if the original plan is not working (although their Plan B was to simply review and adjust as needed). McKinney ISD simply posted student performance data, but more as an addendum and not in relationship to specific goals or expenditures. Austin ISDs district improvement plan is much lengthier than that for McKinney, largely because it includes additional information. Austins plan shows summaries and greater detail about related plans (strategic plan, resource plans, campus improvement plans), whereas McKinney merely references similar plans in a list format. Additionally, Austin ISD shows meeting notes and detailed information about related programs (such as their ACCESS program for community involvement). It can be argued that either plan has elements that show goals, progress, and financial support in an easily readable and comprehensible format. Both plans have examples of incomplete portions of the plan where accountability measures have gone undocumented on the posted form. Also, combined with the incomplete information, both plans have additional information that would lead the average citizen to have difficulty fully understanding the completion or success of the stated plan. To address this it is recommended that each district provide a simple plan summary and basic description of the detailed information to follow.