Often, the state's legislature passes laws and introduces bills that are tailored to larger districts. They sometimes fail to realize that smaller schools do not always have the same resources that are available to larger districts. This is not wrong, it's just the facts. As an example, I would like to share with you some struggles of a small school stemming from the Accountability requirements imposed by the state. This list was composed by Allen Garner from Central ISD.
• Significant cost at $75 per hour for professional service provider (PSP)
• The progress index is an unfair indicator of campus success for a
campus with only one tested grade level. This is not a fair playing field when other campuses have multiple grade levels.
• The measure of student progress for 4th grade math students in
comparison to their 3rd grade STAAR is difficult, when the TEKS have changed this year. We are trying to pull from a 4th grade
released test, with the new TEKS taught this year, and compare to a 3rd grade STAAR with old TEKS.
• Short time between notification that our campus is Improvement
Required and beginning of school year-Staff development is planned at the beginning of summer. This puts a burden on schools to plan staff development during the year to target the areas of the Targeted Improvement Plan. This infringes upon much needed classroom instruction time when teachers are pulled out for the required staff development.
• One year is not long enough to fully meet the mandates of
developing, communicating, implementing, monitoring and evaluating the Targeted Improvement Plan. There was one training date, which was informative, but also raised numerous questions about the process. Principals are trying to get school started, and the time required to do this process effectively is not manageable. This process requires EXTENSIVE Needs Assessment, Data Analysis, planning and meetings with the Campus Improvement Team (who are also teachers), and the deadlines for reports are not realistic expectations for administrators trying to effectively lead a campus. To continue the leadership necessary during the day, countless hours are spent at night and on weekends to do this.
• Small districts do not have resources available for campus level
Curriculum/ Instructional Specialists who are the ones in larger districts assigned to disaggregation of data, monitoring the curriculum and instruction, writing of curriculum, assessments and organizing and providing staff development as needed. Once again, this falls on the campus principals.
• The state has no written curriculum available, so campuses are
responsible for teachers writing curriculum, trying to ensure the
resources are effectively aligned to the TEKS, (which no longer work when the TEKS change) on limited funds available.
• Developing higher level thinking, using technology and the training required, is hard to do when the state does not provide the sufficient funding for this. Most small schools have to write grants to acquire the needed technology to be competitive.
• The systems in place, such as the Kindergarten Readiness System,
always have issues of submission of data. There is, once again, gaps in the communication process.
• The constant changes in the testing of Special Education and
students with dyslexia are not communicated in a timely manner to campuses, in order for students to be tested fairly. Administrators and teachers are not kept informed by the state of changes in a sufficient amount of time, and the training provided by TEA is never adequate.
As I stated before, we love our small schools, but every district, no matter size or location, has its own unique challenges. I just want to make you aware of how we have to weigh all things when legislation is passed. We want to do the very best job possible in educating our children, and we will work hard to overcome any obstacles that stand in our way. As always, if you would like to speak about this or any other issues, please don't hesitate to contact me.
