Board accepts new family‑engagement rubric tied to Dual Capacity Building Framework; administration will refine baseline

The Austin ISD Board of Trustees voted to accept a monitoring report on Constraint Progress Measure 2.1, a newly developed rubric intended to measure campus family engagement through the Dual Capacity Building Framework.

All trustees present voted to accept the report, which the administration described as a baseline, formative assessment carried out in November. Administration officials said the rubric will be refined before final year‑end scoring.

Why this matters: The constraint progress measure evaluates whether campuses develop and meet family engagement goals that align to a framework aimed at building reciprocal school‑family partnerships rather than only measuring participation counts.

What the rubric does: Ali Ghilarducci, Chief of Communications and Community Engagement, said she mapped the district's 2018 family engagement policy to the dual capacity framework's six standards: communicating, parenting, student learning, volunteering, school decision making, and community collaboration. Ghilarducci described three rubric levels: does not meet, approaches, and masters. "Participation alone does not demonstrate the reciprocal partnerships the framework aims for," she said, explaining that a master‑level campus goal expresses how family contributions are used to shape schooling and outcomes rather than only increasing attendance at events.

Trustee discussion: Trustees asked for concrete examples of changes seen on campuses and how the district will measure implementation. Trustee Coppin asked for examples of actions that underlie successful goals; Ghilarducci pointed to campuses that shifted from one‑way messages to facilitated conversations that invited families to help interpret campus academic results and co‑design next steps. Trustees asked how the district will track Campus Advisory Councils (CACs), PTAs and other engagement channels beyond simple rosters; the administration said it intends to move beyond compliance checks to providing principals with facilitated conversation guides and to develop clearer evidence reporting tools in Plan4Learning.

Family voice and accountability: Trustee Hunter asked how families are incorporated into evaluation; staff said the rubric and future implementation plan will include family input and that the special education family advisory committee and ACPTA (Austin Council of PTAs) will be engaged in refining tools. Administration noted the rubric is a formative baseline and invited trustee feedback before the district applies it to year‑end scoring and target setting.

Formal action and next steps: Trustee Quintana moved to accept the monitoring report; Trustee Hunter seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Administration will finalize the rubric in consultation with families and the board, add clearer evidence fields for Plan4Learning entries, and return results after the next assessment window.

Ending: District staff said this is an evolving tool: staff will pilot rubric refinements, produce guidance for principals on running evidence‑based CAC meetings, and coordinate with ACPTA to create simple resources that campus leaders and parents can use to make engagement work reciprocal rather than merely procedural.