(Seguin) — The Seguin ISD is working to improve the academic achievement of all students at all of its campuses. The district recently released its plans to improve performance within the state’s accountability measures.
Superintendent Jack Lee says the district is taking a strategic approach to improving academic performance across its campuses. Dr. Lee says there must be a critical focus on leadership at both the campus and district level, along with a clear and sustained commitment to teacher support. He says those elements are essential to driving meaningful change across the district. He went on to layout the full strategy during a recent meeting of the Seguin ISD Board of Trustees.
Creation of Campus Leveling
As part of the overall strategy, Lee says the district has created three campus levels to better identify schools based on past academic performance, with Level 3 representing campuses that need the most support. More than 50 percent of students currently enrolled in the Seguin ISD attend one of the four schools identified as Level 3.
“Level 3 is our campuses that need the most support. And the way that they become a Level 3 campus is they either have a D or an F rating in the current year, or they had an F at one point in the two prior years. So, it’s not just about where we’re at this moment, but also where are we coming from, so that we can make sure that we have the support we need. We have four campuses that fall in that window as being a Level 3: Jefferson Elementary, Barnes Middle School, Rodriguez Elementary, and Seguin High School. Those are the ones that I feel like need the most support to be able to see the improvement that we need to happen,” said Lee.
Level 2 schools represent the next tier. These campuses have not earned failing grades, but still require clearly defined support.
“A Level 2 campus is based off of any campus that currently has a C rating or had a D rating at some point in the prior two years. Again, we’re not looking at just where we’re at, but also where did we come from,” said Lee.
“Those six campuses are Ball. Keep in mind that Ball does not get accountability ratings by itself. They are a paired campus with Koennecke. So whatever Koennecke’s rating is, Ball carries that. Ball Early Childhood is on that list because Koennecke had a D in 2024. AJB also had a D in 2024, and so they’re a Level 2. Patlan is listed on here as a Level 2 campus because they had a D in 2023. Patlan is one of our interesting campuses that went from a D to an A to a B. That doesn’t mean that we’re all out of the woods. We want to keep moving forward. We want to get them to be a Level 1 campus. Vogel had a D in 2024 last year, and Weinert had a D in 2024 last year also.”
Two campuses — McQueeney Elementary and the Mercer-Blumberg Learning Center (MBLC) — are classified as Level 1. These schools have maintained a higher level of academic performance over the past three school years.
What the Levels Mean
The campus leveling system establishes a clearer response from the district as it works to improve academic performance at each school. Level 3 campuses, which require the most academic and classroom support, will see some of the most significant changes. This includes increased classroom support and more frequent campus visits. Lee says district leadership will spend additional time on these campuses to ensure quality instruction is taking place.
“We’ll do instructional rounds in January, where we walk campuses across the district and classrooms across the district as leadership teams to look at what’s happening in there. Those instructional rounds are not about teachers. I want to be very clear. The instructional rounds are not about teachers. We are going in and we are looking at what’s happening, but it is about us and making sure we are calibrated on what we are seeing. If we see good instruction, do we agree that it’s good instruction? What makes it good instruction? We don’t even document which teachers’ rooms we go into. We don’t write that stuff down because it’s not about teachers. It’s about just how we are seeing things,” said Lee.
While instructional rounds are not evaluative, there will be additional T-TESS (Texas Teacher Evaluation and Support System) observations at Level 3 and Level 2 campuses. Teachers at Level 3 campuses will receive three observations annually, while Level 2 campuses will receive two. Lee says this approach is designed to provide better feedback and ensure quality instruction is occurring in schools that need the most support.
“They will have three T-TESS observations throughout the school year — not just one, but three times between now and the beginning of the year and the end of the year. If they’ve already had one, great. The only way we can know what’s happening in classrooms is if we are in the classrooms. That’s nothing against the teacher. It’s about making the teacher better. I think we have quality teachers on all of these campuses. Our goal is to make them better. And then monthly curriculum calibration walks where we are walking campuses and we are seeing what is being taught, and is it aligned with the scope and sequence of what is supposed to be taught in classrooms,” said Lee.
The additional observations are just a small part of the plan. Lee says additional teacher support will also be provided throughout the year.
“For teacher development for a Level 3 campus, that also includes bi-weekly training every two weeks on instructional strategies that will be led by the curriculum and instruction department. We’re not talking about what you’re teaching, but how you’re teaching — high-impact, research-based, high-leverage instructional strategies in the classroom. And so, we start rolling those out to staff, and then all core teachers in tested subjects, especially, have to have monthly instructional coaching and monthly administrative feedback cycles where we’re talking about what we’re seeing and what’s happening in those classrooms,” said Lee.
Regardless of a campus’s assigned level, much of the support structure will apply districtwide. Lee says there is significant overlap among Turnaround Plans and Targeted Improvement Plans across campuses.
Why These Changes?
Some teachers may initially view the changes as intrusive, but Lee says the plan is designed to take a holistic approach that focuses on systemic improvement rather than individual classrooms. Lee says the district must ensure that every student receives a consistently high level of instruction, regardless of campus or classroom.
“We have to expect that on these campuses, especially, that we are implementing our HQIM — the High-Quality Instructional Materials and the district’s instructional materials. They have to be implemented with fidelity. We don’t miss, we don’t steer away from it. This is what has to be implemented so that we can make sure that it’s happening the way it’s supposed to. And then they would have twice-weekly PLCs (Professional Learning Community). One PLC that is focused on instruction and one that’s focused on data. The other thing is that for those campuses that are Level 3 campuses, we have to see that they are using lesson plans, which if they’re using HQIM with fidelity, the lesson plan is done for them. They don’t have to, but if there are specific lesson changes, that needs to be initiated by curriculum and instruction, and they have to use those — not self-created things,” said Lee.
The plan also includes a review of leadership practices to ensure support systems are being used effectively.
“Our instructional coaches have to be trained on instructional coaching, and they have to actually provide instructional coaching to teachers and not be substituting for classrooms when there are vacancies. That’s not the support that we need to be able to see the improvement that we need to,” said Lee.
Lee fully acknowledges that some changes may be unpopular, but says the district is committed to doing what is necessary to improve outcomes for students.
“We will get complaints about the work that is happening. I own it. Like, I own it right now. We’re going to tell people that they have to do something different than they have done before, and they will not like that. And you as a board will hear complaints about some of those things. Either we’re in it for the right reasons, or we’re not. I wouldn’t recommend it if I didn’t think it’s what’s best for the district and what’s best for kids. And so even if we have things that people start complaining about — by all means, send them my way. I will be happy to have conversations with anyone. I will always visit with someone. I will not budge on what’s best for kids, though, period. That is my line in the sand. We’re going to do what’s best for kids,” said Lee.
Lee says some teachers may express concern about a perceived loss of autonomy. He says the goal is not to take autonomy away, but to ensure instructional alignment and consistency across campuses.
“If you want to have full instructional autonomy of what happens across the district or in your classroom, you have to earn that ability by being an outstanding instruction-based individual. So it’s not a matter of us telling teachers they can’t do something or shouldn’t do something. It’s about — show us what you can do, and once you’ve earned that ability, by all means, go for it. If you’re a phenomenal teacher, I want you to have the instructional autonomy that you need to do the job. But we’ve got to get everybody on the same page of where we’re at and what needs to happen,” said Lee.
The Goal for the District
Creating a culture of strong instruction in every classroom is at the heart of the district’s academic improvement plan. The strategy emphasizes leadership at every level and establishes consistent expectations districtwide.
“The goal is to get our campuses to an accountability rating that is appropriate. So in those targeted improvement plans, you will see that each campus has different goals that are set as part of that plan. Those are the goals that are necessary to get them out of the improvement cycle that TEA currently has us in because we have not performed where we are. So those goals are what we need to hit to move to that next level. Now you will see a lot of the same things in those targeted improvement plans from campus to campus. That is intentional. It’s intentional because we have to establish good instructional expectations across the district and good professional learning community protocols across the district. We have to have good instruction, whether it’s in a kindergarten classroom or a high school English 2 classroom — good practices are good practices,” said Lee.
Lee says the district’s current accountability challenges developed over time and will require sustained effort to reverse.
“It’s not like something magical happened and all of a sudden we have low accountability ratings. It was an over-time thing that got us into the situation that we’re in. And I don’t know and I don’t care what the excuses are. All I care about is where we’re at and what we do next. I don’t care what happened in the past. I don’t care what caused it. None of that matters to me. What matters now is what are we doing for kids moving forward? But it did not happen overnight. I need the board to also understand that improvement will not happen overnight. We are not going to see magical improvement from tonight until tomorrow morning because I stood here and said, ‘this is what we’re going to do.’ It takes time to move the needle in a meaningful way that creates systemic change,” said Lee.
The need to turnaround the academic performance of local schools isn’t just important for students. It’s an existential for the Seguin ISD as we know it. The state can take over any district that has schools with five consecutive years of low performance. If that happened, it would mean a total loss of local control of Seguin schools.