In this final installment, we look at the results ACE strategies have produced, the lessons learned from the program’s first four years and how other districts might best emulate this model. Read the first three pieces here.

No one can deny the impact the ACE model is having on underperforming campuses, particularly ones with long records of leaving students behind and unprepared for what comes next.

In the 2017-18 school year, 62 percent of Dallas’s ACE schools earned an A or B grade from the Texas Education Agency’s annual rating. The participating ACE schools, which form their own feeder pattern, also earned more “distinctions” from the state than any Dallas Independent School District feeder pattern. (The state awards distinctions for achievement in subjects like math, reading and science.)

In 2018-19, the overall results have been equally impressive: Six of Dallas’s 11 ACE campuses earned a B, while one campus was awarded an A. Only one school earned below a C, and that was Elisha Pease Elementary School, which received a D.

The results in Fort Worth are not as strong. Only one campus, Como, earned a B. Three got Cs, while one received an F. But here is the important part: For at least three consecutive years before entering the program, every FWISD Leadership Academy had been labeled a failing school. Now, slowly and incrementally, four of the five campuses are making progress.

Stay the course

Despite the success to date, this dual approach of using data and strong educator talent to improve student achievement will only work if the districts can hold firm with fidelity. Change comes within a system when there is a steady commitment to implementing strong practices along with dedicated resources of people, money and time. Disciplined, consistent implementation of education interventions may not make headline news. But stability within a system is critical to ensuring that proven reforms last and student outcomes improve.

Maintaining the upward projection will especially be critical as schools move out of the ACE model. What happens then? Will the progress of their students slip away? And what might happen with the middle schools in these cohorts, which are often the most challenging to turn around and keep progressing?

Edwin Flores, a former Dallas school board president, has a direct answer: “We must keep our foot on the pedal.”

In practical terms, this means retaining strong school leaders, keeping instructional practices in place, giving incentives to strong teachers to stay on at struggling campuses, and providing services like instructional coaching and extended days.

Make no mistake: None of this work comes easily. Dallas already has had to trim some of its payments to ACE teachers participating in the third and current cohort of ACE schools, which includes the Martin Luther King Jr. Learning Center. Instead of paying every educator a bonus to teach in those ACE schools, a dozen or so highly effective teachers receive them and form a leadership team that infuses the school with the program’s strategies.

Dallas school district leaders acknowledge that figuring out the transition is a work in progress. Improving the exit strategies for schools is a top priority.

The district’s attempt to address these realities starts with putting the transitioning campuses on a “fragile schools” list. A few of the campuses that went off the ACE list at the start of the 2018-19 school year saw some academic gains slip away. One lost double-digit points in reading and two lost double-digit points in math.

The good news is that those exiting schools still closed the academic gap between their own schools and the rest of DISD campuses by more than half since they started in the program in 2015. But to counter the backsliding, the district is paying mentor teachers $2,000 to work in fragile schools. A school can have a dozen or so mentors who will be able to continue ACE strategies. And all the educators in the transitioning schools are invited to attend Professional Learning Communities meetings at other ACE campuses to learn and replicate on their home campus.

The transitioning schools also can keep their assistant principals and any teachers who wish to stay. The educators would lose their extra pay, which, of course, may cause some assistant principals and teachers to leave the school.

But an educator focus group conducted by Best in Class and the Dallas district reported that school culture and community were the most important factors for teacher retention. Teachers were more concerned about the quality of their principals than their stipends. “The biggest challenge after schools leave ACE,” Garrett Landry of the Best in Class partnership observed, “is the consistency of leadership.”

The principal’s role is so key that Dallas school trustee Dustin Marshall believes the district should continue the $15,000 extra stipend for principals to stay in their schools after their campuses exit ACE. That would mean less than $200,000 per year for the district, a fairly nominal sum given that the Texas Legislature approved money in its 2019 session to help ACE-like schools.

The investment certainly would be in students’ best interest. It would maintain consistency in leadership, which, in turn, would help retain quality teachers. It also would protect the district from losing the investment it has made in those leaders and educators and the progress of their students. (ACE costs run about $1,300 per student on top of standard per-pupil funding.)

Another challenge for transitioning schools is that the skills of their leaders might be needed elsewhere. Half of the principals in the first ACE cohort were promoted to principal supervisors. And over the summer, DISD officials reluctantly decided they needed Rockell Stewart, principal of the MLK Learning Center in 2018-19, to return to backsliding Billy Dade Middle School as its leader. (MLK’s assistant principal, Romikianta Sneed, has replaced Stewart.)

Lessons learned

Dade’s struggles highlight the particular challenge of transitioning middle schools. Commit collected data that show that reading and math scores in ACE middle schools improved at a lesser rate from 2015-18 than they did in ACE elementary schools. Middle school reading scores rose by 15 percent during that time versus the 26 percent increase in elementary school reading scores. And middle school math scores rose by 22 percent versus 36 percent in elementary school math scores.

Faced with these realities, Dallas Superintendent Michael Hinojosa has pushed for training middle school teachers and assistant principals across the district in ACE practices. And the middle school struggles are among the reasons Dallas school leaders, as well as teachers, believe they now need exiting criteria along with entrance criteria for ACE campuses.

The recent educator focus group suggested such exit standards as an accountability rating of a B or higher, strong climate and culture scores, consistent leadership, and survey results from parents and students. Whatever standards are adopted, it would make sense for the district to gradually decrease resources to participating schools instead of simply ending the extra help.

These are the types of lessons other districts can learn from Dallas’s ACE model. This fall, eight Texas districts beyond Dallas and Fort Worth will operate their own version of this program. Together, the 10 districts represent about 10 percent of the state’s student body.

At the top of the list of lessons learned for any district attempting this model is to first have an effective way of differentiating leadership and instruction with a clear, multi-measure evaluation system. Teachers, principals and parents all need to understand how teachers and principals are identified as eligible to be a part of an ACE campus. Shoulder-tapping leaves out key talent and creates a culture in which who you know is more important than what you know. As Marshall put it, “One step builds upon another. You cannot go to the end without going through the beginning.”

The second most important lesson is having a succession plan for exiting schools. Be prepared that some schools may need a long-term commitment, and all campuses will need a gradual release from extra supports.

The third lesson is related: Districts should see a model like this as a multiyear project. ACE practices are not a quick fix. Instead, they are great practices, done well consistently over time. Not all campuses go in the right direction all the time.

The fourth lesson is that states need to create by their own data-driven A-F systems that differentiate campuses. They should marry that accountability system with legislation that gives districts the flexibility and resources to succeed with an ACE-like system.

The investment might be substantial, but it will be more than worth it, especially if more schools within a district adopt the data-driven strategies. Doing so greatly increases the likelihood that all students will receive a year of learning for a year of classroom work.

And that, of course, is all that matters.

Read the remaining chapters of this series here.

is the Ann Kimball Johnson Director of the George W. Bush Institute鈥檚 Education Reform Initiative.

is editorial director at the George W. Bush Institute.

In this third chapter, we look at the impact that a highly-effective principal can have on a campus. Read the first two pieces here and here, and check back this week to read the final chapter here.

Rockell Stewart not only is a school leader; the educator knows the realities of her students’ lives. She grew up in the same Dallas neighborhood surrounding the Martin Luther King Jr. Learning Center. She knows from personal experience the impact that a solid educational foundation can have on a child’s future.

Ms. Stewart stood out as a leader before being named the principal at MLK at the start of the 2018-2019 school year. She had served as an assistant principal at nearby Billy Dade Middle School, one of the original ACE campuses. “We saw at Dade, one of the most challenging middle schools, how she embraced the mission that all can achieve at a high level with the right teachers, supports, and culture,” Jolee Healey, the head of the Dallas Independent School District’s ACE program, explained.

Just as Dallas’s ACE program and Fort Worth’s Leadership Academies depend upon strategically selecting teachers, the initiatives think carefully about the principals who lead their schools. They look for “high-growth” leaders who have shown they can improve student outcomes by improving instruction and school culture.

This part of the ACE model is crucial. Principals are second only to teachers when it comes to impact on student outcomes. Great teachers stay with great principals 鈥� and great teachers leave schools led by ineffective principals. The George W. Bush Institute’s supports the importance of districts building systems that help districts recruit, support, and retain highly-effective principals in every school.

In DISD’s case, the district uses its Principal Excellence Initiative to identify “high-growth” principals, looking for campus leaders at the highest performance level. Interested principals may apply, and they meet with a DISD panel during the selection process. If selected, ACE principals receive a $15,000 increase in pay. Assistant principals receive $13,000 more in their annual stipend.

Being the coach

The first major task each ACE leader faces is finding the right talent for the school. When Ms. Stewart took over at the MLK Learning Center, she began interviewing prospective teachers. The result was the near-wholesale turnover that led to 20 of 27 teachers coming in new to MLK last year.

This level of turnover isn’t out-of-the-ordinary at new ACE campuses. When Laura Garza took over as principal of DISD’s Annie Webb Blanton Elementary School in the 2015-2016 school year, she hired an almost entirely new staff. The hard decisions paid off as Blanton became the early symbol of how the ACE fundamentals can redirect a school’s course.

At the end of the 2017-2018 school year, 82 percent of Blanton fifth-graders scored a “met grade level” on Texas’ math achievement test. The year before Garza arrived, only 15 percent of Blanton’s fifth graders earned that distinction. What’s more, their performance on the 2018 math exam trumped the 79 percent of fifth graders who “met grade level” at the nearby and affluent Highland Park Independent School District’s McCulloch Intermediate School.

Celebrating such successes is part of the ACE leadership strategy. At the beginning of a late spring Professional Learning Community meeting at the MLK Center, Stewart started with praise for the substantial growth fifth-graders had shown on a mock state reading exam.

During the discussions that morning, it was also clear that she knew the path of individual students. She takes their work home with her at night, so she is as current on their needs as the teachers. “We revisit data every day,” she explained.

Real-time knowledge of campus data and how to turn it into student progress is a major part of an ACE principal’s work. Each school leader must deeply know the instructional part of a campus’ work and handle the management of the school broadly.

For starters, they need to know how to effectively lead Professional Learning Communities. Great principals understand time is their most precious resource. They use meetings to add value to teacher practice and student learning. In the case of PLCs, this means staying focused and thoughtfully using data to improve instruction.

The good news is the data sessions are drawing attention around the district. Stewart reports that 30 DISD principals visited the MLK Learning Center during the last school year. They came to see how the school drills down into various academic results and use the information to improve instruction and learning.

She also points to MLK’s work on creating a positive culture as a reason for its progress. “My No. 1 goal is for scholars to have joy,” she explained, “along with rigor and learning.”

Rhines in Fort Worth came to her position at Como Elementary after being in the community, too. She had led the school for two years before it became a Leadership Academy.

Como’s transition did not go smoothly at first for all parties. About 10 percent of the teachers were rehired, but the extra commitments the Leadership Academies require prompted some teachers, including longstanding ones, to leave. Ms. Rhines worked hard to solidify community trust in the new mission and the school’s culture. In fact, she said last spring, not one parent complained about the changes.

Working with partners

Leading complex organizations 鈥� like ACE campuses or Leadership Academy schools 鈥� requires that the principals serve as ambassadors and advocates for their campuses and students in addition to improving instruction and culture. They must form bonds with parents, students and teachers, and they also engage with the larger community around their schools. Their mission to transform their schools and give students a life of purpose, mobility and agency does not happen behind closed doors.

Teaching Trust, the North Texas nonprofit, provides experts who work with leaders like Stewart and Rhines. They help provide research-based proven instructional and school management practices, including the work of experts like Paul Bambrick Santoyo, who focuses on data-driven instruction and improvement.

They also collaborate on “coaching in the moment,” which is one of the key skills for both ACE and the Leadership Academy Program educators. “Principals become coaches who help teachers grow. And the work is reciprocal. Teachers help principals grow,” explained Healey. “When schools embrace growth and highly value learning, the adults also are growing.”

The Commit Partnership, the North Texas education intermediary, works with ACE and Leadership Academy schools as well. Through a partnership with the Communities Foundation of Texas and Best in Class, Commit convenes a meeting of ACE campus leaders every other month. This includes leaders from all districts across Texas that have an ACE program. (This fall, eight more districts will operate their version of the ACE program.)

Garrett Landry, a former DISD school official who serves as director of Best in Class, describes these ACE Learning Community sessions as an opportunity to build relationships and learning among school leaders. Along with visiting a local ACE campus, Landry reports the participants “learn from peers about using data, improving instruction, working with parents, and leading schools.”

He also points to the emphasis on social-emotional learning that these initiatives incorporate into their curriculum. The building of resilience is a part of the larger efforts to support students’ academic success.

For example, ACE schools create “houses” within each school that can earn bonuses like a free dress day for meeting a metric like coming to class on time. As the year progresses, the metrics get harder to meet as they are aligned to student growth goals and other milestones determined by teachers and principals. Leaders in the schools often talk about creating “joyful” places to learn, where successes are celebrated.

In short, the principals must create a new culture on their campuses. As Rhines said, that is one reason Como’s relaunch got buy-in from parents.

The steady work of these schools is why the ACE model is also gaining attention around Texas. The leaders of the Texas Legislature’s two education committees focused on the program during the 2019 legislative session. Districts around the state are developing ACE-like programs, supported by a new Texas law that offers districts the flexibility to take new approaches to serve kids and families.

The progress of the first cohorts also prompted Dallas Supt. Michael Hinojosa to expand the number of schools in the district’s ACE program. Data-informed leadership and instruction are working and making a difference for students.

Read the remaining chapters of this series here.

is the Ann Kimball Johnson Director of the George W. Bush Institute鈥檚 Education Reform Initiative.

is editorial director at the George W. Bush Institute.

In this second chapter, we look at how principals and teachers use data to drive instructional excellence. Read the first piece here and check back this week to read the other chapters here.

The Dallas Independent School District strives toward having a strong majority of an ACE school’s faculty and leadership being rated 鈥減roficient.鈥� This starts with faculty members being asked to reapply for their positions before a school can become an ACE campus. Principals then meet with teachers to discuss the new vision for the school and requirements for the teachers and staff.

In the Martin Luther King Jr. Learning Center’s case, 20 of the school’s 27 teachers were new to the campus in the 2018-19 school year, its first as an ACE school. In the process, the school went from 21 percent of its teachers being rated proficient to 65 percent meeting that standard.

During a springtime visit to the MLK Learning Center, it was common to see teachers walking around their classrooms with clipboards in hand. They would circle desks, talk with students about the assignment they were working on, and jot down notes about the work of individual students.

Clipboard monitoring allows teachers to use real-time data to assess the progress of students as they work on in-class assignments. They can then circle back to intervene with struggling students, sometimes in small groups. Jolee Healey, a former principal who oversees DISD’s ACE program, calls this “data in the moment.”

Another ACE technique is using clocks to pace instruction. The principals and teachers know how many instructional days and minutes they have each year, so they are focused on making each minute count. Disciplined instruction like this may be one of the more unheralded aspects of successful teaching. If educators wander off their lesson plans, they are likely to fall behind where students are expected to be in learning a state’s standards. “Every minute counts for quality learning,” Healey emphasizes.

Of course, as she also notes, instructors need the time to teach a subject and work with students who are not on track. But the clock reminds them of the importance of pacing. Otherwise, they may end up cramming 鈥� or skipping 鈥� information as a semester ends, and student learning suffers.

Knowing the data

Each classroom has a wall display showing how many students are on track in a particular subject. The categories include “masters,” “meets,” “approaches” and “growth.” Every student is represented by a number to protect their identity, but a visitor can quickly see where students are on their path to becoming proficient in subjects like reading, math, and English.

Students likewise know their own data. In a class last spring, one of the school’s homeless students proudly stood up to explain that he now hit the “masters” mark in reading. By owning their data, students get to show their progress as well as understand what they need to do to improve.

Of course, the purpose of sharing student progress data isn’t to shame slower learners, and the teachers are careful in this regard. Rather, it is to encourage progress and to more strategically work with those students who need particular help. Clipboard monitoring also allows teachers to put together groups to help students catch up in a subject, and classroom growth is celebrated.

Data review meetings are a key part of the weekly routine on ACE campuses. The gatherings of teachers with the school’s administrators to review student results are an ACE hallmark: Professional Learning Communities. PLCs meet twice weekly during planning periods, although they can meet each day. “You will see teachers rehearsing together,” says Rockell Stewart, who led the MLK Learning Center in the 2018-19 school year.

Healey explains that the sessions challenge teachers to use data to design lessons that encourage learning. This was evident in the exchanges that fifth-grade teachers Amelia Carroll and Erik Acosta had one spring morning with Stewart and Freda Mitchell, the MLK Learning Center’s instructional coach.

As the foursome reviewed a group of fifth-graders’ reading scores, they drilled down into the problems some were having with inferences and discussed ways to help them improve. Acosta then explained to the group how his bilingual students had shown growth in learning an English standard that requires grasping plots in a story. Nearly 90 percent of his students met the state’s standards on a mock state achievement exam.

The meeting, run in a disciplined, structured way, followed a crisp agenda with norms and a timeline of discussion items. The group worked through issues like how to teach a particular English standard. They also made use of data charts on the wall, data binders and outlines showing what the state expects the students to know in a subject like fifth-grade reading.

Stewart and Mitchell would interject with questions or comments about how best to work with particular students. The group engaged in talks about “unpacking questions” on a state exam so students could better understand them. They concentrated on what stood in the way of particular students progressing in a subject: Was it a conceptual problem or a procedural one? As one example, they spent time thinking about strategies that could help a student who got only 45 percent of questions right on the mock state English exam.

Some may say this aggressive monitoring is simply “teaching to the test.” But understanding the state’s expectations and tearing apart questions to make sure students know the content helps them to truly learn a subject. Some children do suffer from real test anxiety, and supports are available to help them. And some students are made anxious about tests by the words and actions of the adults around them. The educators around this table agreed, however, that exams are a teaching tool for all students.

The group also emphasized that learning starts with building readers. That requires spending classroom time learning how to read fiction and nonfiction books. “Then, they understand the questions,” Mitchell said. “We are trying to build the habits of great readers.”

Some critics contend that a robust focus on data takes time away from the fundamentals of education, such as teaching a child how to enjoy reading. But the ACE model shows that data-informed instruction need not be at war with the fundamentals. Instead, it helps to make sure that students and teachers receive the supports they need.

To be sure, an intense concentration on data does reshape how some teachers approach their craft. Jose Lara is a sixth-year first-grade teacher at MLK whom Stewart asked to stay on at the school when it became an ACE campus. He conceded that the strategy takes a lot of work and requires adapting to a use of so much information at a fast pace. “We didn’t go deeply into data before,” he noted as his first-grade class worked on an assignment one morning. But Lara said the data focus “works wonders.”

Indeed, results at his school have been encouraging. An impressive 90.3 percent of MLK’s fifth-graders passed the state’s reading exam at the end of the 2018-19 school year. That represented a 20.7 percent increase from the scores of fifth graders on the 2017-18 reading exam. Similarly, 83.3 percent of fifth-graders passed the state’s math exam, which was up from 60 percent the year before.

In the fourth grade, 58.6 percent passed the state’s reading exam and 60 percent passed the math test. Those numbers are not as impressive as the fifth-grade scores, but they were up from 38.5 percent in each subject in the 2017-18 school year.

Scores went up in the third grade, too. In reading, 70.9 percent of third-graders passed the exam. In math, 74.1 percent passed the state exam. A significant percentage of students are not passing in those critical subjects, but those numbers are still up by 10 percent and 23.4 percent, respectively, after only one year in the ACE program.

In fact, in every subject and every grade, students as a whole made double-digit gains. The only sub-population not experiencing any kind of growth were fourth-grade special education students.

The MLK Learning Center earned a B from the Texas Education Agency for its 2018-19 results 鈥� up from a D in the previous school year.

Fort Worth’s model

Many of these data-driven strategies are at work as well in the Fort Worth Independent School District. The district adopted a version of ACE in the 2017-18 school year, calling its model the Leadership Academy Program. Priscila Dilley heads the network, which is a partnership between FWISD and Texas Wesleyan University in Fort Worth. (FWISD is one of the districts participating in the George W. Bush Institute’s School Leadership District Cohort research project, which is focused on principal talent management and implementation.)

At Como Elementary Leadership Academy, formerly a traditional elementary that long served a historically black neighborhood, Valencia Rhines leads a 440-student campus that is one of five in the district’s Leadership Academy Program.

Teachers in the academies are required to track daily data in their classrooms and then do a quick review of the information at day’s end to see how it might shape instruction the next day. Along with data from classroom assignments, they draw upon results from biweekly assessments, which the Leadership Academies use to detect progress and struggles. Teachers then work with experts from the Teaching Trust, a North Texas nonprofit, to develop systems to overcome learning gaps, improve instructional monitoring and strengthen the school culture.

In addition to the Teaching Trust professionals, Fort Worth’s district provides two instructional coaches for each school in its network. But Rhines considers the Teaching Trust experts a significant asset for improving instruction and tying lessons to meet the state’s expectations. “Correcting instruction has made a big difference,” echoes Dilley. She emphasizes how administrators focus on breaking a state academic standard down so teachers know how best to teach it. They concentrate on re-teaching so students don’t fall behind.

As at MLK, Como’s students are expected to track their own data. They know where they are supposed to be at each grade level. In two classes, teachers even had students lead meetings with their parents about their data.

Some differences exist, though.

Although 20 of Como’s 30 teachers were new to the school in 2017, Fort Worth ISD does not have evaluation tools like DISD’s Teacher Excellence Initiative and its Principal Excellence Initiative. The district instead worked with Commit, a North Texas education organization, and Education Resource Group, a Houston-based education analytics firm, to identify effective teachers through a process that sat outside of its formal evaluation system.

Using state assessment data for teachers in grades three through eight, and I-Station data for teachers in kindergarten through second grade, these organizations helped identify FWISD teachers who showed proficiency in growing their students academically during a school year. An emphasis was placed on finding educators who could consistently achieve growth over multiple school years.

The district then used that list to more broadly examine the skills of the identified teachers via classroom observations. Administrators observed the teachers in their classrooms to witness whether their delivery of content, engagement of students, and ability to connect with their classroom matched the data.

The process has not been as structured when it comes to selecting principals. Leaders from Commit and FWISD used campus achievement data to identify possible candidates. A district team then selected principals to lead a Leadership Academy.

FWISD is reviewing its evaluation system to identify how it might be strengthened by multiple measures that reward strong instructional abilities and student success. Districts that try to apply the ACE model without using a multi-measure teacher and principal evaluation system to identify the most effective teachers and principals will likely struggle. Transparency and a high-quality process are critical for buy-in and equity over time.

Fort Worth’s Leadership Academies also don’t require their Professional Learning Communities to have weekly data meetings. In Fort Worth, the PLCs can use their time each week to plan lessons or review data. By contrast, data sit at the heart of all instructional design in Dallas, and the PLCs are built around the data.

Still, scores have risen at Como and FWISD’s other Leadership Academies. In the 2018-19 school year, reading scores for all Leadership Academy students combined went up eight points; math scores went up four points; science scores went up 25 points; and writing scores went up nine points.

The scores reveal that students attending four of the five Academies 鈥� except John White Elementary School 鈥� are showing academic growth year over year. Proficiency scores are still low at every Leadership Academy campus. But academic gaps are being closed between Leadership Academy students (except those attending White) and the overall FWISD district averages in the 2018-19 school year.

Read the remaining chapters of this series here.

is the Ann Kimball Johnson Director of the George W. Bush Institute鈥檚 Education Reform Initiative.

is editorial director at the George W. Bush Institute.

In this first chapter, we look at how data shapes the innovative program鈥檚 work, starting with the selection of participating teachers. Check back this week to read the other chapters here.

Rockell Stewart stands just under five feet tall, but the principal of the Martin Luther King Jr. Learning Center in Dallas makes her presence quickly known when you enter the campus doors. She comes at you with a broad smile, an outstretched hand and a positive manner.

MLK was once one of the Dallas Independent School District鈥檚 lowest-performing campuses. The school, sandwiched between two freeways and bordered by vacant lots and overgrown yards, qualified for the district鈥檚 Accelerating Campus Excellence program due to low academic performance. Learning Centers were mandated by a desegregation lawsuit in the 1970s. Despite decades of investment and interventions, MLK鈥檚 students were still being left behind.

Now, the campus is at the start of a transformation. The school鈥檚 27 teachers and 441 students 鈥� a quarter of whom are homeless 鈥� are participants in an experiment where data are used by the moment to improve learning.

Data from multiple sources 鈥� state exams, district tests and classroom quizzes and observations 鈥� inform the work of leaders like Stewart and the teachers in DISD鈥檚 11 active ACE schools. (Since its inception four years ago, 17 schools have participated in the ACE program.) While some decry tests as the death of learning, ACE takes the opposite approach by understanding measurement as the cornerstone of strong instructional design. Assessments are a tool in service of a greater outcome 鈥� student learning.

Identifying top teachers

The Dallas school district launched the ACE initiative in 2015, when then-Superintendent Mike Miles persuaded school trustees that flooding underperforming schools with strong leaders, highly effective teachers and data-driven instruction could lead to better outcomes for students. The ACE model also includes financial incentives for staff, increased focus on reading and math instruction, social-emotional learning and development, extended days, increased parent engagement and a culture of high expectations.

The mix of these elements has varied in each of the three cohorts of ACE schools over the past four years, but at the heart of this model is knowing which principals and teachers are truly effective. Talent management as an intervention strategy was new in DISD, which distinguishes ACE from earlier school turnaround attempts.

DISD鈥檚 previous evaluation system resulted in 95 percent or more of teachers being rated in the district鈥檚 top two categories. There was a 鈥淟ake Wobegon鈥� quality to the results, in which every educator was above average, even though the academic performance of the district鈥檚 students lagged behind. At the end of the 2010-11 school year, for example, the Texas Education Agency rated 33 of the 230 DISD schools 鈥渁cademically unacceptable,鈥� including one-third of its high schools.

Edwin Flores, Dallas鈥檚 former school board president, says the district鈥檚 own research showed that less effective teachers were placed in schools attended by students who were the furthest behind. He would know; he was on the board before the district developed a more objective evaluation system. Flores, a Dallas attorney, started thinking with the superintendent at the time, Michael Hinojosa, and other school board members about what the district needed to do to differentiate effective teaching.

Hinojosa soon left for suburban Atlanta, but the district searched for a superintendent who knew how to use data-driven systems. They settled on Mike Miles, a West Point graduate who had used data to improve student achievement in a Colorado Springs-area district.

Miles led the Dallas board in creating a research-based tool that would provide more than subjective reviews of an educator鈥檚 work. The Teacher Excellence Initiative includes data from multiple principal observations of a teacher鈥檚 classroom work, results from Texas鈥檚 state achievement exams and data from student surveys. (Due to their age, early elementary students are not part of the surveys.)

Teachers now earn higher pay for higher performance. No longer does a strict salary schedule determine pay with a checklist of items like years of teaching, advanced degrees and perfunctory reviews. Teachers are no longer considered proficient by just doing the basics, like showing up on time, dressing appropriately and punctually turning in lesson plans.

Dallas teachers now are rated along a performance continuum that consists of nine categories, ranging from novice to proficient to master. The new framework is built around objective data and multiple inputs, making it more difficult to game the system. Now, teachers cannot contend they received a low review because their principal didn鈥檛 like them. And strong teachers don鈥檛 have to worry that their principal is rating their low-performing colleagues highly so as not to ruffle feathers. The data tell the story.

The TEI 鈥� and the PEI, the Principal Excellence Initiative 鈥� became the cornerstone of Dallas鈥檚 ACE program. As Flores says, 鈥淵ou can鈥檛 have ACE without TEI, or a similar system that differentiates excellent teachers. You don鈥檛 know who to put in front of kids.鈥�

Dustin Marshall, a fellow school trustee, echoes this point: 鈥淵ou can鈥檛 send the best teachers if you can鈥檛 identify them,鈥� he emphasized over coffee one morning.

This stronger evaluation system allowed the district to identify which teachers were the most effective. Once that became clear, the district could recruit strong teachers into schools like the MLK Learning Center as part of ACE. Real improvement in outcomes required a big change in school culture and instruction. Trying to elevate low-performing schools without making changes to the adults on campus would be like the Detroit Lions trying to win the Super Bowl without making one change to the players or coaching staff.

After the board passed Superintendent Miles鈥檚 plan, principals with their own high ratings were offered $15,000 extra for leading an ACE campus. Selected teachers were offered an additional $8,000 to $12,000, depending upon their TEI rating. (Every teacher in the first two ACE cohorts received a stipend in this range. The third and current cohort pays that amount to about a dozen or so teacher-leaders in each school.)

The extra pay was certainly an incentive, but it also publicly demonstrated the priority the district placed on supporting students attending its lowest-performing campuses. As Miles put it, 鈥淣othing will work if what you value is disconnected from where you invest your money.鈥�

Another ACE advantage is that high-quality teachers get the chance to work with other top instructors. In creating the program, Miles said the board studied how to move teachers and found that few educators wanted to go by themselves to an underperforming school. 鈥淒istinguished teachers will join a struggling campus if they believe they can help create a culture of high achievement and high expectations,鈥� he wrote in a planning memo. 鈥淭hey want to be part of a group of teachers with the will and ability to turn around a school.鈥�

To do that, of course, requires knowing which teachers to put in front of students with some of the most significant academic gaps. That can only happen when a district uses a strong, multi-measure evaluation system to objectively reveal those highly-effective educators.

Read the remaining chapters of this series here.

is the Ann Kimball Johnson Director of the George W. Bush Institute鈥檚 Education Reform Initiative.

is editorial director at the George W. Bush Institute.