Comparison of Two District Improvement Plans

In comparing the Austin I. S. D. plan to my district, there were several components that were similar, but there were also many differences. Both plans address long and short term goals. The plan for the district that I work in only stated the goals and listed some of the short term goals to accomplish the long term goals. The Austin I. S. D. plan, in my opinion was better organized. In addressing the comprehensive system for continuous improvement, Austin not only stated the policy, but it also illustrated the alignment of the district's planning efforts (Figure 2). However, my district completed a comprehensive needs assessment, and included the data documentation for the assessment. Austin I. S. D. did not include a needs assessment, but made reference to one being conducted.
In the plan for the district that I work, each area to be addressed is outlined in a table format that indicates the following: 1) the goal that is to be addressed; 2) the person(s) responsible; 3) resources; 4) the timelines for implementation; 5) timelines for monitoring; and 6) evidence of completion. The Austin I. S. D. does not include any of the fore mentioned. The AISD plan uses a balanced scorecard to monitor performance. A template of the scorecard should have been included.
The Austin I. S. D. Plan presented a very detailed strategic plan along with three principal components. Although both plans refer to and list the Vision, Mission Statement, Values, Goals, Measurable Outcomes and Strategies, the Austin I. S. D. plan discusses it as a part of its strategic plan. The Austin plan goes on to discuss Departmental and Employee Plans. These components are not a part of my district’s plan. I also like the fact that AISD has established stakeholder groups that are a part of the decision-making process. My district has individuals from the community listed.
The AISD plan did not include enough data based on student performance. Since student performance is the basis for any school district’s improvement plan, more emphasis should have been placed on student performance data. In fact, there is no real data, only reference made to addressing the data. It also referred to Figure 3 that was to list annual actions for 2010-2011. I could not locate Figure 3.
Although there are major similarities and differences between the two plans, the most important components are included in both. The major differences are the presentation and the format in the two plans.