State of Texas Requiring AISD to Eliminate Specific Goals for Economically Disadvantaged Black Students

The Texas Education Agency monitor era is underway at Austin ISD. One of the first steps is to eliminate race- and special-education-specific goals on the district’s “scorecard.”

What is the scorecard? It’s a long-toiled-over document that sets out the district’s top five priorities and pairs them with measurable goals. For example, the current scorecard states that 60% of economically disadvantaged Black middle schoolers should be reading at or above grade level by 2026; that’s one part of the larger goal No. 4, which aims to increase test scores for economically disadvantaged middle schoolers.

But that goal will have to be eliminated, the trustees learned at their Nov. 9 meeting. Under the terms of the deal they struck with TEA in September, the district must operate under the “Lone Star Governance” model. That model will still allow the district to measure literacy of Black middle school kids from low-income families, but it can’t be an official goal on the scorecard.

“This kind of broke my heart because we have to revert back to aggregate goals.”  
– Board President Arati Singh

To make sure the district satisfies the terms of the agreement, the board has hired an expert consultant in Lone Star Governance – Ashley Paz. Paz said the issue with this fourth goal is that it does not make reference to any specific statewide test. Goal No. 1 has the same problem, she said. It aims to improve outcomes for students in special education at every grade level. “There is no single assessment that actually measures performance for all grades or for all subjects,” Paz said. “So the recommendation in Lone Star Governance is that you have goals that are smart. And so this does not pass that very first requirement of a smart goal, which is: Is it specific?”

Trustees seemed confused and disheartened as Paz made suggestions to “retool” the goals. At one point, Trustee Candace Hunter lifted up her Lone Star Governance info packet, saying, “I guess I need to go back to the beginning. What is the purpose of these goals? What is our purpose in having these?”

Paz responded, “These are your student outcome goals. These are the goals that the board monitor – that the board sets that is reflective of the community’s vision for how student outcomes should be improved.”

Hunter responded: “What we already know is that our community is concerned about underrepresented students, which we’re not going to be looking at exactly.”

Board President Arati Singh told the Chronicle that the board is still “committed to setting targets and monitoring” specific student groups, including those in special education and those who are economically disadvantaged, and she points out that state law requires some monitoring of marginalized groups, even if the overall goals are for an aggregate.

But at the meeting, Singh expressed disappointment about the need to jettison the scorecard’s first goal. “This kind of broke my heart because we have to revert back to aggregate goals,” she said. Trustee Lynn Boswell noted that the community had fought hard to move away from the use of aggregate data and would be disappointed to return to it.

“To be clear, this is what is required, not what is allowed,” Paz responded, making the point that the board can follow TEA’s requirements while also independently looking at other data. She explained that “the reason for changing it is so you can start demonstrating growth on your quarterly self-assessment for TEA. You’re expected to show that you’re moving the needle in your governance practices.”

The board reluctantly agreed. They said they’ll restart the goal-setting process from scratch in the spring.