what exceptional governance looks like in texas...texas xg school board self-assessment survey...

XGexceptional governance

summitthe

© 2018 Ivan Lorentzen and William P. McCawTM

What eXceptional Governance Looks Like in Texas

by

Ivan Lorentzen and Bill McCaw


summitthe



Welcome Back


summitthe


-The research: Calculating Texas data

-Differences between high performing and low performing districts

- Differences in achievement gaps between all students and students in poverty

-XG Self-Assessment as a diagnostic instrument

Where we are going this afternoon . . .


summitthe


The Research


summitthe


Wikimedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Texas_flag_map.svg

Texas Data


summitthe


Texas XG School Board Self-Assessment Survey

• Based on the Washington Board Self-Assessment Survey©

• Development Process for Content Validity• Construct Validity Established• Reliability Established• Texas Modifications


summitthe


Structural Scheme

XG School Board Self-Assessment Survey

•Standards (5)

•Benchmarks (22)

•Key Indicators (69)


summitthe


XG School Board Self-Assessment Survey(BSAS-WSSDA, 2009; Lighthouse; McREL; NSBA Key Works;)

The Five Board Standards

Standard 1: Responsible school district governance

Standard 2: High expectations for student learning

Standard 3: Create conditions district-wide for student and staff success

Standard 4: Holding the district accountable for student learning

Standard 5: Community engagement


summitthe


Structural Scheme


•Standards (5)

•Benchmarks (22)



summitthe


Governance

Expectations

Conditions

Accountability

Community

Ethical ConductDiverse PerspectivesRoles and ResponsibilitiesPolicies Driving Student SuccessHealthy RelationshipsTeamworkImproved Learning for AllDistrictwide VisionAchievement PlanStudent Achievement GoalsSafety and SecuritySustaining Quality EmployeesLearning EssentialsManagement for LearningGoal Driven BudgetingAchievement Throughout DistrictSuperintendent EvaluationValid and Reliable AssessmentsCommunity CollaborationTransparencyCommunity CommunicationDiverse Input


summitthe


Structural Scheme


•Standards (5)

•Benchmarks (22)



summitthe


Texas XG School Board Self-Assessment Survey

To what extent does our board (Select appropriate answer):

Base its decisions on what is best for student’s success?

Don’t Know Never Some of the time Most of the time Always

1 2 3 4


summitthe



10th Grade Approaches (AY17-18)

• Not at Approaches• Approaches• Meets• Masters


summitthe


High and Low Achieving Districts

Differences:


summitthe


Considerations and Cautions

CausalityGeneralizabilityTransferability

Self-Perceptual DataEffect Size (differences)


summitthe



Boards of high performing districts

behave differently

than boards of low performing districts.


summitthe


S P L I T

High Student Achievement

Low Student Achievement


summitthe


DescriptiveStatistics

Board Score MeanRange

BoardScore

Mean*

StudentAchievement

Mean

High Performing (n=4) 1.4-4.0 3.22 92.7

Low Performing (n=4) 1.6-4.0 3.48 67.7

High Achieving School Districts Compared to Low Achieving School Districts (N=23)

* Board Mean Score for all Key Indicators


summitthe


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 2 3 4 5

Series1 0 12 41 10 5

Series2 3 13 18 19 14

Nu

mb

er o

f K

I

XG Self-Assessment Board Scores

Board Key Indicator Mean Score from High and Low Performing Districts: Reporting Trends by Frequency (Mode)

4.00-3.75 3.75-.350 3.50-3.25 3.25-3.00 3.00 -Below

Boards governing districts with HIGH performing student achievement Boards governing districts with LOW performing student achievement


summitthe


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 2 3 4 5

Series1 0 12 41 10 5

Series2 3 13 18 19 14

Nu

mb

er o

f K

I

XG Self-Assessment Board Scores

Board Key Indicator Mean Score from High and Low Performing Districts: Reporting Trends by Frequency (Mode)

4.00-3.75 3.75-.350 3.50-3.25 3.25-3.00 3.00 -Below

Boards governing districts with HIGH performing student achievement ( x = 3.22) Boards governing districts with LOW performing student achievement ( x = 3.48)


summitthe


Effect Size AnalysisIf you walk into a room of 100 people, what kind, and how readily, can differences be seen?


summitthe



Effect Sizes Degree of Obviousness Example

Large differences seen from across the room male/female(d= .80 – 1.29) wearing glasses

skin tone


summitthe





skin tone

Medium differences revealed face to face eye color(d= .50 - .79) wearing contacts

ethnic origin


summitthe





skin tone

Medium differences revealed face to face eye color(d= .50 - .79) wearing contacts

ethnic origin

Small differences revealed by close analysis blood type(d= .20 - .49) musical ability

fingerprints/DNA profile


summitthe


Effect Size Analysis

“In education, if it could be shown that making a small and inexpensive change would raise academic achievement by an effect size of even as little as 0.1, then this could be a very significant improvement, particularly if the improvement applied uniformly to all students, and even more so if the effect were cumulative over time.”

Coe (2002)


summitthe



Texas Effect Size DataDifferences in board scores between

high performing and low performing school districts


summitthe


Sorted 10th Grade – ApproachesBoard Differences

Low and High Performing Districts

Standard Benchmark Key Indicator Effect Size (d)

Key Indicator Description


summitthe





5 B 65 .507

2 A 21 .391

1 A 2 .380

1 F 19 .368

2 A 22 .253

1 E 15 .251

Transparent and Accountable

Communicate High Expectations for ALL

Clear and Shared Purpose

Orientation of New Board Members

Culture of Improved Student Learning

Treat All with Respect


summitthe





5 B 65 .507

2 A 21 .391

1 A 2 .380

1 F 19 .368

2 A 22 .253

1 E 15 .251


High Expectations for ALL





Community Differences


summitthe





5 B 65 .507

2 A 21 .391

1 A 2 .380

1 F 19 .368

2 A 22 .253

1 E 15 .251

Governance Differences








summitthe





5 B 65 .507

2 A 21 .391

1 A 2 .380

1 F 19 .368

2 A 22 .253

1 E 15 .251

Expectation Differences


Policy for High Expectations for ALL






summitthe





5 B 65 .507

2 A 21 .391

1 A 2 .380

1 F 19 .368

2 A 22 .253

1 E 15 .251







Standard 5Engage local community and represent the values and expectations they hold for their schools


summitthe


Purpose INFORM CONSULT INVOLVE COLLABORATE

(Engagement)

OBJECTIVE

PROMISE TO

THE PUBLIC

EXAMPLE

TOOLS:

Public Participation Spectrum (Illinois Association of School Boards, 2015)


summitthe



(Engagement)

OBJECTIVEProvide the

public with

information

PROMISE TO

THE PUBLIC

Provide feedback

on how public

input influenced

the decision

Incorporate public

advice and

recommendations

into the decision

EXAMPLE

TOOLS:

Workshops

Deliberative

polling



summitthe



(Engagement)

OBJECTIVEProvide the

public with

information

Obtain public

feedback

Work directly

with the public

throughout

the process

Partner with the

public in

decision-making

PROMISE TO

THE PUBLIC

We will keep you

informed

Provide feedback

on how public

input influenced

the decision

Ensure public

concerns &

issues are

reflected in the

alternatives

Incorporate public

advice and

recommendations

into the decision

EXAMPLE

TOOLS:

Fact sheets

Websites

Open houses

Public comment

Focus groups

Surveys

Public meetings

Workshops

Deliberative

polling

Citizen advisory

committees

Synergy-building

Participatory

decision-making



summitthe


Achievement Gaps

Differences:


summitthe


GAP

Achievement of All Students

Achievement of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch


summitthe


DescriptiveStatistics

Board Score Mean Range

BoardScore

Mean*

Achievement GapDifference

Mean

High SA/Low Gap (n=5) 1.0-4.0 3.17 3.8 (gap range= 2.6-5.2)

Low SA/High Gap (n=5) 1.3-4.0 3.23 5.8 (gap range= 2.8-11.2)

School Districts with High Mean Achievement for all Students and a Low Achievement Gapvs.

School Districts with Low Mean Achievement for all Students and a High Achievement Gap

* Board Mean Score for all Key Indicators


summitthe


10th Grade Student Achievement Gaps

Ordered by student mean achievement: high to low

Ordered by the gap between the mean achievement of all students compared to the mean achievement of students on free and reduced lunch (poverty)


summitthe


10th Grade Student Achievement Gaps

sorted sorted


summitthe


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5

Series1 0 11 17 28 13

Series2 5 13 17 15 19

.

Series1 Series2

4.00-3.75 3.75-.350 3.50-3.25 3.25-3.00 3.00 -Below

XG Self-Assessment Board Mean Scores

Boards governing districts with HIGH Student Achievement with LOW GAPSBoards governing districts with LOW Student Achievement with HIGH GAPS

Nu

mb

er o

f K

I

Board Key Indicator Mean Score by Achievement GapReporting Trends by Frequency (Mode)


summitthe


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5

Series1 0 11 17 28 13

Series2 5 13 17 15 19

.

Series1 Series2

4.00-3.75 3.75-.350 3.50-3.25 3.25-3.00 3.00 -Below

XG Self-Assessment Board Mean Scores

Boards governing districts with HIGH Student Achievement with LOW Gaps Boards governing districts with LOW Student Achievement with HIGH Gaps

Nu

mb

er o

f K

I

Board Key Indicator Mean Score by Achievement GapReporting Trends by Frequency (Mode)


summitthe



Texas Effect Size DataDifferences in board scores between

boards governing districts with HIGH student achievement with LOW GAPS and boards governing districts with LOW student achievement with HIGH GAPS

Large 3

Medium 2

Small 10


summitthe



Achievement Gap Analysis


3 C 36 1.12

3 C 35 .84

1 B 6 .83

3 D 42 .59

4 A 52 .58

Curriculum, Support, & Materials

Course of Study & Graduation

Goals for Board Improvement

Effective Instruction for All

Recognize Efforts Improving

Student Learning


summitthe





3 C 36 1.12

3 C 35 .84

1 B 6 .83

3 D 42 .59

4 A 52 .58

Conditions Differences






Student Learning


summitthe





3 C 36 1.12

3 C 35 .84

1 B 6 .83

3 D 42 .59

4 A 52 .58

Governance Differences






Student Learning


summitthe





3 C 36 1.12

3 C 35 .84

1 B 6 .83

3 D 42 .59

4 A 52 .58

Accountability Differences






Student Learning


summitthe


A Diagnostic Instrument

XG Board Self-Assessment Survey


summitthe


Governance(hard)

Expectations(hard)

Conditions(easy)

Accountability(hard)

Community(easy)

Achievement Throughout DistrictSuperintendent Evaluation

Valid and Reliable AssessmentsEthical Conduct

Diverse PerspectivesRoles and Responsibilities

Policies Driving Student SuccessHealthy Relationships

TeamworkImproved Learning for All

Districtwide VisionAchievement Plan

Student Achievement GoalsCommunity Collaboration

TransparencyCommunity Communication

Diverse InputSafety and Security

Sustaining Quality EmployeesLearning Essentials

Management for LearningGoal Driven Budgeting

Var

0.696

0.902

0.571

0.376

0.477

0.653

0.490

0.653

0.679

0.617

0.643

0.474

0.776

0.750

0.786

0.449

0.746

0.816

0.662

0.668

0.408

1.075

Ord. Var

1.075

0.902

0.816

0.786

0.776

0.750

0.746

0.696

0.679

0.668

0.662

0.653

0.653

0.643

0.617

0.571

0.490

0.477

0.474

0.449

0.408

0.367


summitthe


- Effective changes are not intuitive but should be guided by data

- Board behaviors matter for addressing both high student achievement AND closing the student achievement gap

- Board actions matter because school boards, when addressing factors within their control, can create environments where social injustices are overcome and every student achieves at high levels

- Even small improvements in boardsmanship over time, makes an important difference in student achievement

- Everything you do leaves a mark

The Bottom Line . . .


summitthe


Thank You


Ivan J. Lorentzen, Ed.D.

[email protected]

William P. McCaw, Ed.D.

[email protected]

what exceptional governance looks like in texas...texas xg school board self-assessment survey...

Documents