As we move into the final weeks of School Board elections, here’s a sum up of some of my own opinions and observations about DISD's challenges:

1. DISD Magnet programs are among the best in the nation. There is a lot we can learn from our own programs. Are we taking advantage of that?

Not historically, but that may be changing. The plans to create four new High School magnet programs will definately help us learn how to do this better. However, there are huge bias challenges to overcome.

A trustee told me that a TEA PhD’d expert reported to the Board that school-within-a-school magnets are better in the long run than stand-alones. Really? I would love to see the details of whatever study she based her opinion upon - the survey parameters, the sample pool size, and the raw data. Dallas’ experience has been quite the opposite.

I personally think what “makes the difference” in a school is a combination of expectations, curriculum, teacher morale, and parental involvement. I believe stand-alone campuses tend to get better results because they tend to have higher teacher morale and more parental involvement than the school-within-a-school programs. There is more optimism about program preservation at the stand-alones. The parents complain louder when the programs are threatened by new District policies.

2. The four high schools with below-par graduation rates should continue with plans to create school-within-a-school magnet programs.  WITH safeguards!

There is cost involved (ties into #3) but if it can be funded, magnet programs will bring up graduation rates. BUT, remember the concerns of point #1? In the last sweeping budget cuts, almost all the school-within-a-school magnet programs were severely cut and the core programs altered. Part of the motivation to do this was budgetary, and part was a desire to end the Learning Center programs. Some trustees believed that the Learning Center programs were not cost effective and did not have consistent academic results, meaning some performed well in testing and others didn’t. They thought the money should be redistributed more evenly throughout the District, since some of the schools near Learning Centers had the same demographics, but not the same budgets.

However, in the process of cutting the Learning Center program, the Board and DISD damaged well-performing magnet programs. There was very little discussion (due to time constraints and the very dysfunctional communication system in place between Board and Community) about how to save what did work (both magnet and Learning Center) and trim what didn't.

The point? If the Board approves creation of new magnet programs, they must also create safeguards to protect those programs.

3. The School Board should ditch the $300,000 per year newsletter and use the money to drum up more donations for the District.

Larry Throm (DISD CFO) has told the Board more times than I can count, “You can do whatever you want to do. But for every dollar it costs, you have to take a dollar from somewhere else if you are going to build your Fund Balance.” The budget is finally balanced in real numbers (at least on paper) and Mr. Throm is holding everyone to it.

Income from traditional sources is not going up. There is no more money coming from the State for a while. Federal money has a spaghetti mess of strings attached. Dallas itself is going to have to solve this one. Dallas needs to invest more in its school system, especially new programs like magnets and career centers. Bonds aren't the answer this time - I think business partnerships are. But, businesses aren’t going to throw money down a drain, and they have to be convinced it’s a good investment. Every investor wants proof that their money is going exactly to the program they think it is going for.

(In a perfect world, the city should be able to fill funding gaps in the event Federal guidelines change and conflict with District priorities. The city should have the financial freedom to be able to say, “No, thank you.”)

4. Board members should constantly nag PTA’s to network and plan for the long-term.

There is an alarming drop-out rate that goes on under the radar - parent involvement in PTA. There is a big drop-out rate between elementary and middle school, and then again between middle and high school. The magnets run the highest percentages of parent involvement, but even they struggle. This is a trend that will take years to reverse. What better time to start that long road than now?

Every PTA ought to have a non-partisan Board Observer/Delegate, and every Board Member ought to be able to use the PTA’s to gather and disseminate info for them. I understand that there are legal issues that have to be considered, especially in campaign years. These issues should be evaluated and not violated. However, these issues should not stop the process of creating a strong PTA network for each Board District. There is a HUGE disconnect between the elected School Board member and the majority of their constituency. That has to change, or creative problem solving for our district from the public sector will continue to be hamstrung.

The School Board needs the public to help them do their job well, and the public needs their School Board members to be able to communicate effectively. There is no consistent system in place for either need. Each new Board member is forced to recreate the wheel, OR to depend upon the DISD Administration to do it for them. That creates serious institutional bias.