HEB ISD staff outline 20-year continuous-improvement approach, point to testing, behavior and special-education shifts

Presenter (unnamed in transcript) led a December staff session describing HURST-EULESS-BEDFORD ISD's two-decade use of a Baldrige-derived continuous-improvement (CI) framework to align boardroom strategy with classroom practice.

The presenter said the approach requires defining expected results before acting and aligning leadership and operations so "we're all pushing that car in the same direction." She used a frequent phrase to emphasize planning discipline: "Hope is not a plan." The session covered the seven Baldrige categories (leadership, strategic planning, customer focus, measurement/analysis, knowledge management, workforce, operations/results) and the district's managed curriculum, which enables common assessments across classrooms.

Why it matters: HEB ISD officials said the system helped the district maintain relatively strong ratings through multiple accountability changes. Presenters tied the district's ability to respond during the pandemic to preexisting processes and to one-time federal ESSER dollars used for student recovery interventions rather than recurring payroll, saying, "The money was for recovery from the pandemic." They also flagged practical pressures that affect results: changing state tests that complicate multi-year comparisons and sharp increases in special-education enrollment.

Key details and evidence: The presenter said the district is maintaining roughly a 23,000-student enrollment level and described how the managed curriculum allows common exams and data analysis to identify teacher- or curriculum-level problems. The session identified one campus, Bell Manor, with a 78 (high C) school score; presenters said that was an anomaly relative to the district's broader A/B performance.

Pandemic response and technology: Staff described the emergency push to distribute devices and to deploy Canvas as a learning-management system in about 40 days; district staff credited that rapid work and subsequent technology investments with helping the district sustain instruction during remote learning.

ESSER spending: Presenters explained ESSER funds were used for time-limited intervention staff and student-recovery programs and warned against using one-time federal money to fund recurring positions.

Testing and accountability: The group discussed recent and impending changes to state testing (rebranded assessments replacing prior STAR/STAAR constructs) and concerns about College, Career and Military Readiness (CCMR) measures being inconsistently applied as the state changes what counts as a qualifying CCMR activity.

Workforce, behavior and special education: Presenters said workforce supports (well-being days, employee assistance) and faculty planning time remain priorities; they also described observable shifts in student behavior, especially among younger children, and said special-education enrollment has risen from roughly 8.8% to about 16% over approximately four years.

Board perspective and next steps: Board members and staff discussed channels for campus-level feedback (campus improvement committees, district-level committees and the PCC), use of PDSA (plan-do-study-act) and quality tools, and legislative advocacy through county superintendent groups and statewide associations (TASA/TASB). The meeting concluded with a routine adjournment motion; no formal policy vote took place.