Compact toolkit: working draft

Compact toolkit: working draft

December 22, 2010Working draft

CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARYAny use of this material without specific permission of McKinsey & Company is strictly prohibited

McKinsey & Company | 2

“The goal of the compact initiative is to improve collaboration and innovation between charter and districts schools to provide all students in a city with a portfolio of highly effective education options, accelerating 80 percent college readiness in the city.”

-- Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation


Purpose of this toolkit

Purpose

▪ Provide background on the Compact, guidance on the process, and ready to use “tools” for cities that are considering engaging as “Round 2” Compact cities

▪ Leverage the experiences and tools used by cities that completed a district-charter Compact in December 2010

How cities should use the toolkit

▪ View this document as a “toolkit” with potentially helpful guidance—these are not templates or required approaches

▪ Utilize and customize the tools and exercises that are most relevant to your city’s Compact and context


Table of contentsSections What’s included

Overview of the compact initiative

4

Development I: involving and engaging the right participants

▪ Designating compact leads▪ Deciding who to engage in the process▪ Sample approaches for engaging the charter

community

Development II: developing a meaningful compact

▪ Developing an approach to content development▪ Templates and tools

20

▪ What should be included in a work plan▪ Sample work plans

43

Ensuring follow-through ▪ Planning ahead for implementation▪ Accountability process overview

49

What makes a good compact

▪ Criteria and example collaboration ideas 13

Development III: work planning

26

▪ Compact overview ▪ Context, rationale, and objectives

▪ Planning ahead for risk 47Mitigating risk

1

4

5

7

6

2

3

Page

Appendix ▪ Catalogue of collaboration ideas 518


The compact initiative evolved from a desire by cities to accelerate district-charter collaboration

Origin

The idea for the compact

initiative originated at a

gathering of superintendents and charter leaders in February

2010. The group recognized

the need to improve collaboration and innovation between charter

and district schools in order

to provide all students in

their cities with a portfolio of

highly effective education

options.

Goals

The group asked for Gates Foundation support in fundamentally shifting the district-charter dynamic in their cities. They asked for help with individual city efforts to

▪ Transform the systems and incentive structures that foster unhealthy competition between districts and charter schools in each city

▪ Tackle the most intractable challenges to collaboration, including access to facilities, equity in funding, and serving special needs students

The initiative

As a first step in driving long-term change, the group asked for

▪ Support for cities willing to make specific commitments to take district-charter collaboration to a deeper level

▪ Structures for holding cities accountable for those commitments

▪ Strong examples of collaboration for other cities across the country


The compact initiative – what is it?

▪ Generate high-potential collaboration ideas to address pressing challenges, including resource sharing:

– Access to facilities– Equitable funding– Serving special education, ELL, and high need students

▪ Support leaders who are committed to the hard task of affecting change

▪ Refine charters’ role in the solution: charters have as much to offer to collaboration efforts as districts

Objective

Support provided

▪ A draft compact with language for general commitments to provide a starting place for each district’s compact

▪ A national convening of participating cities to discuss common challenges and share best practices

▪ A national compact launch press event including all cities with signed compacts

▪ A small grant to participating cities to support compact commitments

Expectations of participants

▪ Develop a compact supported and signed by both district and charter leaders

▪ Share learnings and collaboration ideas with other participating cities

▪ Take responsibility for following through on city-specific commitments (the Center on Reinventing Public Education will track cities’ progress, developing measures of success and reporting progress)


The compact initiative – who should participate?

Cities participating in the compact initiative are

▪ Committed to being national leaders in tackling the most intractable roadblocks to district-charter collaboration

▪ Committed to pushing district-charter collaboration to a deeper level within the city

▪ Willing to take on the risk of political repercussions and local resistance to change

▪ Asking to be held accountable for following through on city-specific collaboration commitments


The prevailing district-charter dynamic is often characterized by mistrust and missed opportunities

The relationship between school districts and charter schools varies city to city, but in many cases is characterized by competition for resources and a “zero-sum” mindset: rather than competing to outdo each other in providing excellent educational opportunities, schools are struggling to control ideas, funding, or facilities.

“Video surfaced last week of City Council woman Gale Brewer saying she'd "strangle" families that chose to leave a local public school for a public charter school …local elected officials around the nation regularly take equally anti-school-reform stances.” 1

-- Kevin Chavous (chairman, Black Alliance for Educational Opportunity), Howard Fuller (former Milwaukee superintendent )

"Charter movement people have gotten a little skeptical about the big urge to cooperate more with districts and to share what we do with districts…I think the best quote I’ve ever heard about this is attributed to Yvonne Chan, the founder of the first conversion charter school in California, the Vaughn 21st-Century School, and she said, “I’m always asked, ‘When are we going to see ripples from your innovation?’” and she said, “‘You can’t see ripples if the lake is frozen.”

-- Nelson Smith, president and CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools

SOURCE: Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools, New York Post

1 Howard Fuller and Kevin Chavous, “’Strangling’ NYC Kids’ Futures”, New York Post, 10/27/10; Nelson Smith, Charter Schools Chief Advocate, District Administration, 9/2009


Moreover, recent history demonstrates that this dynamic is difficult to change

Political riskWith entrenched vocal advocates on either side of the dynamic, it can be challenging to find common ground, particularly for elected and public officials

Competing stakeholder interestsImprovement often requires that trade-offs be made (and balanced) among a number of stakeholders increasing the challenge of capturing the necessary of buy-in breadth

Union oppositionWith multiple issues and negotiations often being addressed in parallel, it can be difficult to create buy-in on specific district-charter collaboration

The need for legislative changeMany desired changes are outside of the control of local leaders and require significant effort

Tension and lack of trustSkepticism and low confidence on both sides based on a history of “bad blood” can undermine even promising collaborations

Barriers to increased collaboration


Charters are an increasingly important part of public education in cities across the country

Enrollment in charter schools in the U.S.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education Common Core of Data (National Center for Education Statistics); NAPCS

Student enrollment in Cohort 1 cities

% of all public schools

0.6% 3.5% 4.9%

4,920

3,399

507

200920051999

+45%

TotalTraditional Charter

Nashville 80,08098% 2%

New York 999,31597% 3%

Hartford 22,01896% 4%

Rochester 36,38993% 7%

Denver 77,25590% 10%

Los Angeles 678,27790% 10%

Baltimore 82,86690% 10%

Minneapolis 44,40378% 22%

New Orleans 36,81639% 61%


▪ A joint district-charter initiative created a template for how

teachers can develop and refine detailed year-long plans.

The templates, and other materials are now available more

broadly. –Washington D.C.

▪ 2 charter and 1 district middle school share a common

enrollment zone, and every student living within the zone is

guaranteed a spot at one of the schools. –Denver

▪ A campus with a co-located district and charter school are

piloting an active collaboration partnership. Students share

lunch and recess and joint staff meetings will be held

throughout the year. –Los Angeles

Examples of collaboration from across the country

SOURCE: Promising Educational Practices, Ohio Alliance for Public Charter SchoolsEducation Week, “Regular Public Schools Start to Mimic Charters”, Nov. 8, 2010

Education Week November 18,

2010

“But both supporters and skeptics... agree that so far the [district-charter] cooperative efforts are not widespread nor are most of them very deep”


Why participate? What Cohort 1 cities said

Putting a balanced set of commitments on a single compact was a huge part of what allowed us to get Board approval on issues that all had been dealt with independently before. Together, these ideas will have a huge impact on all of our kids.

– Charter Leader

Being able to codify and expand collaboration that is already happening is important, particularly in light of leadership transitions. Now we can build on what we have and pursue the even bolder ideas we have in the Compact.

– District Leader

▪ The public nature of the compact and process helped build trust and accountability

▪ The opportunity to be a national leader in a high-profile initiative motivated participants to push for bolder changes

▪ It provided a way to get buy-in on issues typically dealt with independently

▪ It opened up new areas of collaboration with and among the charter community

▪ It allowed us to articulate a unified call for change

The compact initiative was useful because…






community






▪ Criteria and example collaboration ideas



▪ Planning ahead for riskMitigating risk

1

4

5

7

6

2

3

Appendix ▪ Catalogue of collaboration ideas8

4

20

43

49

13

26

47

Page

51


A good compact articulates a shared district-charter vision and outlines a set of detailed commitments that will help achieve it

An articulation of the joint commitment to ensure that all children have access to high-quality public schools

Specific commitments on how the vision will be achieved

Vision for the future

A set of broad commitments common to all compact cities

A set of city-specific commitments to collaboration


An example of how one city articulated its vision in the compact

We, the undersigned, believe that

▪ High performing schools rely on, cultivate, develop, and support highly effective school leaders and teaching professionals

▪ High performing schools are student-centered, pursuing innovation and actively sharing demonstrated best practices to support their dissemination and implementation at scale

▪ High performing schools empower parents by offering meaningful choices for students and developing creative ways to engage families in the design and success of their school.

▪ High performing schools collaborate as partners in the county-wide effort to provide an excellent education for all students and, as partners, work to share best practices between classrooms, schools, and leaders

Therefore, collaboratively undertaking to build a system of high performing public schools throughout the county, we, the undersigned, pledge the following on behalf of the present and future students of Nashville-Davidson County…

-- Nashville-Davidson County Collaboration Compact


Broad commitments common to all compact cities

City-specificcommitments

Commitments common to all cities include:

Compacts include a set of general commitments that all cities are expected to incorporate, in addition to city-specific commitments

▪ Serve all students in the city equitably in all schools, including special needs, ELL, and high-risk populations

▪ Ensure transparency regarding student mobility and achievement

▪ Work with districts to locate schools in high-need areas▪ Actively share best practices with district

▪ Embrace responsibility for ensuring that all students graduate from high school ready for college, work, and life

▪ Support high-performing schools, immediately address low-performing schools

▪ Foster a cooperative and collaborative relationship between district and charter schools

Joint commitments

▪ Make district economies of scale available to charter schools

▪ Advocate for equitable per-pupil funding▪ Promote replication of most promising school models▪ Protect autonomy of charter schools▪ Actively share best practices with all charter schools

District commitments

Charter commitments

2 sets of commitments

1

2


City-specific commitments should be bold, specific, and actionable

▪ Has the potential to significantly improve student outcomes and access to a portfolio of high quality education options. It also addressed the most pressing issues in our city

▪ Action to be taken can be clearly understood by all stakeholders and constituents

▪ Actions have are separated into district, charter and joint commitments

▪ Next steps and measures of success are explicitly stated or easily understood in order to ensure appropriate follow-through

▪ Will it make a significant difference to students outcomes?

▪ Does it clearly describe an action to be taken and what we are accountable for?

Bold

Specific and actionable

Criteria Key question Description


Example compact commitments II

▪ “Common approach to... admission lotteries... including common forms

and... parent information system... track outcomes of students winning

and losing... and follow-up on lessons learned... ” –Hartford

▪ “Serve all students; measured by % of special education enrolled –

consider creation of specialized schools / schools within a school to serve

targeted high-need populations” –New Orleans

Equityand

Access

Facilities

▪ “Develop and implement an equitable and transparent process for facilities assignment that considers parent demand, and school

performance, as well as building quality where possible.” –Denver

▪ “Continuing to co-locate and locate charter schools in underutilized district buildings and where a charter school would provide a high-quality

option for parents” –New York


Example compact commitments II

▪ “[Create a] workgroup to develop criteria and definitions for ‘non-performing’ schools and use that information for authorization, renewal, and closure decisions” –Baltimore

▪ “Establish a common high performing school indicator that provides a

clear, credible, and intelligible measure, includes multiple variables, weights student growth highly... used to improve communication and

parent-friendly information regarding all public schools” –Nashville

▪ “Ensure equitable access to Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes

(TRANS) in a manner that is cost neutral to the district.” –Los Angeles

▪ “Offer expanded access on an opt-in basis to services such as food

service, transportation, and procurement.” –Rochester

▪ “Commit to ensuring equitable resources for charter schools…

includ[ing] ... per pupil revenue, ... an equitable share of... Title funds,...

bond funds, ... and materials purchased with federal funds, and grants... ” –

Denver

School-levelaccountability

Resources(non-facilities)






community










1

4

5

7

6

2

3


4

20

43

49

13

26

47

Page

51


Approach to involving and engaging the right participants

▪ Designate a district “lead” and a charter “lead”

▪ Decide who to involve

▪ Develop an approach to engaging the charter community

▪ Decide on the right roles for participants and stakeholders


Designate a district “lead” and a charter “lead”

▪ Be co-accountable for compact effort deliverables and timeline

▪ Build district buy-in on the compact and ensure that the organization supports the final agreement

▪ Represent the district’s voice in workshops and meetings with charters

▪ Co-lead district-charter workshops

▪ Drive agenda, content, and outcomes of workshops

▪ Take responsibility for communication with city stakeholders as appropriate

District lead: main responsibilities

▪ Be co-accountable for compact effort deliverables and timeline

▪ Coordinate communication with charter community

▪ Build buy-in from key charter stakeholders and ensure that the charter community supports the final agreement

▪ Represent the charter community’s voice in workshops and meetings with the district

▪ Co-lead district-charter workshops

▪ Drive agenda, content, and outcomes of workshops

▪ Take responsibility for communication with external stakeholders as appropriate

Charter lead: main responsibilities


Decide who to involve

District

Charter

▪ Superintendent, local school board▪ Senior leadership key to organization-wide support

ExamplesWho to engage

▪ Project lead on special teacher effectiveness initiative

▪ Relevant subject-matter experts

▪ Executive Director of Innovation and Charter Schools, Chief of Facilities

▪ Personnel who will lead follow-through on compact commitments

▪ Representatives from CMOs, stand-alone schools, conversion schools

▪ Representation from the charter community

▪ Representatives from charter advocacy organizations / foundations

▪ Relevant subject-matter experts

▪ President of state charter association▪ Leaders of existing charter organizations

Additionalstakeholders

▪ Other players who could help develop or carry out charter commitments

▪ Union president, Mayor, local foundations, local education organizations


Select charter representatives

Example: New Orleans has a large and highly organized charter community. Two representatives from the charter community volunteered to draft the first compact with the district lead.

Develop an approach to engaging the charter community

Invite everyone to the table

Example: Rochester, NY has only seven charter schools; when the district lead convened the first compact meeting, she invited the head of each charter school or charter network.

ORCreate new communication channels

Example: In Memphis, charter schools had no tradition of group meetings or formal communication. The first step in the compact process for the charter lead was to call a meeting of all charter schools to discuss common goals.

Leverage existing communication channels

Example: In Los Angeles, a charter convening organization holds monthly meetings of charter school representatives and sends out weekly emails. Updates on the compact process were shared both at meetings and through the weekly emails.

Options for engaging charter leaders Options for managing communication and input

OR


Decide on the right roles for participants and stakeholders: example

Letter of support

Working meeting participant

President of state charter association

Mayor

Stakeholder

District facilities head

Charter “lead”

District “lead”

President of local teachers union

Principals of stand-alone charters

Superintendent

Local foundation

CEOs of large CMOs

Feedback on draft compact

Role in implementation

Content development

Signatory

Template to be completed by city






community










1

4

5

7

6

2

3


Page

4

20

43

49

13

26

47

Page

51


Prioritizing the right ideas

Developing the right content

Generating collaboration

ideas

Developing the right level of

detail

Potential approach

▪ Decide on a set of goals that the compact will help you to achieve▪ Catalogue examples of existing collaboration▪ Consider examples of collaboration from other cities▪ Brainstorm new ideas for collaboration

▪ Consider the feasibility and the potential for impact of each idea▪ Decide which ideas should be a priority: what mix of impact and

feasibility makes sense for your city?

▪ Develop each priority idea into a commitment to a specific initiative▪ Consider examples of collaboration from other cities for ideas on

how to make commitments bolder and more specific▪ Solicit feedback on commitments from local and national content

area experts


Customizing the content development process: New Orleans example

Why the approach made sense for New Orleans

▪ History of significant collaboration between district and charters, in a city that is ~70% charter school

▪ Strong understanding of and alignment on the priority issues to address in compact

▪ High levels of trust in “working team” and district-charter accountability

▪ Highly organized charter community with existing communication channels

Approach: 2-person working group writes early draft compact, then solicits input from broader community

▪ 1 district and 1 charter representative (a deputy superintendent and a representative from New Schools for New Orleans) held an early discussion on priority ideas and created a draft compact to refine with other participants

▪ Draft compact circulated to charters via email for feedback

▪ Compact revised based on feedback, and circulated back to charters to solicit support


Customizing the content development process: Los Angeles example

Why the approach made sense for Los Angeles

▪ History of hostility and mistrust between district and charters

▪ Significant, but limited, examples of existing district-charter collaboration

▪ Large charter community including several major CMOs

▪ Charter community highly organized through state charter association; compact leads could leverage association's existing channels of communication with charters

▪ High level of buy-in and alignment on content/language in order to advocate for board approval

Approach: A working group follows a methodical process of formal workshops and exercises before drafting a compact to share more broadly

▪ Third party interviews district and charter leaders to capture ideas, set expectations, and address initial skepticism

▪ 11-person workshop: District and charter leads make prepared remarks to “set a new tone” for the relationship; participants brainstorm and prioritize list of collaboration ideas

▪ District and charter leads create first draft compact

▪ Joint district-charter working teams develop priority ideas in more detail (e.g., actions, impact, next steps)

▪ 18-person workshop: Expanded working group discusses and refines priority ideas; external stakeholders participate in meeting

▪ District and charter lead create revise draft compact and share with broader stakeholders for input before soliciting final signatures


Soliciting feedback from experts

Relevant context to provide to experts

▪ History of district-charter dynamics

▪ District governance model

▪ Size and history of the charter community (and how they are organized)

▪ Compact participants (and who drafted the document)

▪ Level of buy-in to date

▪ Next steps for the compact and implementation

▪ Specific barriers and challenges

Example areas for feedback

▪ Is the compact bold enough to make a meaningful impact?

▪ What would make our commitments most specific and actionable?

▪ Are the commitments and benefits appropriately balanced?

▪ Are there key topic areas missing?

▪ How should we approach gaining additional buy-in (e.g. from charters, school board, stakeholders)?

▪ Are we taking on more than we can feasibly implement?

The value of outside expert feedback

▪ Many cities found it useful to engage a third party expert to review the compact and push on areas where the compact could become more impactful

▪ The best expert feedback sessions were proactively driven by the city to ensure that the experts understood the unique context and areas of inquiry for the city


Tools and resources for content development (1/3)

Tool/resource

Idea brainstorming exercise

Description

▪ Group/workshop exercise to build a list (or build on an existing list) of collaboration ideas

a

Lists of existingcollaborations

▪ Example collaborative practices drawn from cities across the country

▪ Collection of promising cooperative practices from the Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools

b

When it might be useful

▪ To efficiently generate ideas and capture input from a group of people

▪ As an early exercise to help build cooperation/trust among district and charter participants

▪ To seed initial discussions and idea generation exercises

▪ To provide sample ideas and language for what specific commitments might look like

Gen

erat

ing

colla

bora

tion

idea

s



Tool/resource

Prioritization exercise

c

Impact / feasibility estimate tool

d

Description

▪ Group/workshop exercise to quickly and visually capture aligned/differing perspectives on priorities

▪ Individual voting template for rating ideas based on feasibility and impact

▪ A chart showing how to interpret results from the rating exercise

▪ A summary reporting format


▪ To create a basis for a more prioritization discussion

▪ To provide group transparency of where there is already alignment and where there are differences of opinion

▪ To start a conversation about the criteria for prioritization

▪ To help prioritize ideas based on explicit criteria

▪ After aligning on definitions for “impact” and “feasibility”

▪ Capture additional transparency of differences in perspective along the two dimensions and across participants

Prio

ritiz

ing

the

right

idea

s



Tool/resource

Idea development team worksheet

e

Idea development template

f

Description

▪ A template for keeping track of teams responsible for further idea development

▪ A template to guide deeper discussion of each idea and surface areas for further discussion


▪ To record the specific people assigned to further develop each idea, and share role assignment with the group

▪ As a tool to report out on small-group discussions of the ideas to be included in the compact

Dev

elop

ing

the

right

leve

l of d

etai

l


Exercise:▪ Participants spend 30-45 minutes circulating throughout the room

– Ensure that there are at least 1 district and charter person at each poster

– Signal time to “rotate” to another set of ideas every 5-10 minutes

▪ At each poster participants add to and refine ideas:– Add new ideas in the given categories using the red markers provided– Suggest refinements with blue Post-It Notes– Ask questions related to the ideas using yellow Post-It Notes

▪ After each poster has been visited, an individual at each will review and share ideas with full group

Refinements

Questions

Idea list • Idea 1• Idea 2

• Additional idea

Idea generation: brainstorming exercise SAMPLE TOOLa

Preparation:▪ Compile a list of ideas that could be included in the compact (through

interviews, informal conversations, or brainstorming by district and charter leads)

▪ Categorize ideas, and write ideas in each category on a flip chart (or print on posters); and post around a room

▪ Gather red markers, blue post-its and yellow post-its


Examples of district-charter collaboration Collection of promising cooperative practices

Idea generation: list of collaboration ideas SAMPLE TOOLb

“The Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools conducted a nationwide search to find the most promising and innovative cooperative practices between charter and traditional public schools. We sought cooperative practices with strong collaboration, originality, inventiveness and the ability to replicate.”

Link to website:http://www.oapcs.org/event-calendar/national-conference/call-for-practices

Detailed list: See appendix of this document

▪ List of implemented and in-process district-charter collaboration ideas from across the country

▪ Ideas grouped by category (e.g., facilities, human capital)

▪ Ideas characterized by degree of collaboration (e.g., minimal, moderate, deep)

▪ Captured from existing research and interviews with district and charter leaders

http://www.oapcs.org/event-calendar/national-conference/call-for-practices

http://www.oapcs.org/event-calendar/national-conference/call-for-practices


1. Ask each participant to post 5 green stickers on flip charts to indicate which ideas he/she is most excited about exploring further – Each person should use all five stickers on five different ideas– Ask participants to choose ideas that excite them, even if they

may be hard to implement

2. Identify the 5-10 ideas with greatest momentum (most green stickers)

3. Ask each participant to individually rank each of the high-momentum ideas– Each participant rates each idea should be separately on “impact” and “feasibility”:

▫ Impact: Has the potential to measurably benefit students in the city (in terms of access or effectiveness of their education options)

▫ Feasibility: Meaningful changes can be made within 6 months of signing the compact

4. Aggregate participants’ rankings to use as a basis for further discussion– This can be done during a break from the working session, or in preparation for later

meetings / discussions

Idea list • Idea 1• Idea 2• Additional idea

Prioritizing ideas: prioritization exercise SAMPLE TOOLc

Preparation:▪ Write the complete list of collaboration ideas brainstormed to date on flip charts, and post them on the

wall▪ Provide each participant with five green stickers


IdeaPotential impact on students (circle one)

Feasibility (circle one)

A. Idea High Med Low High Med Low

B. Idea High Med Low High Med Low

C. High Med Low High Med Low

D. High Med Low High Med Low

E. High Med Low High Med Low

F. High Med Low High Med Low

G. High Med Low High Med Low

H. High Med Low High Med Low

I. High Med Low High Med Low

J. High Med Low High Med Low

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Prioritizing ideas: participant worksheet SAMPLE TOOLd


Prioritizing: summary scatter plot of all ideas1 Idea 1

2 Idea 2

Idea 33

Idea 44

Idea 55

Idea 66

Idea 77

Idea 88

Idea 99

Idea 1010

Idea 1111

Idea 1212

Medium

3

10 4 5

78

1 11 612

2

9

Average assessment per idea

Low

High

MediumLow

Feasibility

High

Impact

d SAMPLE TOOL


Do not pursue

Feasibility

Impact Do not pursue

For discussion

Do not pursue

For discussion

Pursue

For discussion

Pursue

PursueLo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Low Medium High

Prioritizing: Evaluation of feasibility/impact estimates SAMPLE TOOLd


Collaboration idea Idea team Next steps Deadline

1. ▪ District lead:▪ Charter lead:▪ Functional experts:

▪ ▪ ▪

▪ ▪ ▪

2.

3.

4.

5.

Idea team is responsible for next steps in developing the idea content for the compact

Developing the right detail: planning chart SAMPLE TOOLe

Some cities found it easier to translate this page into a simple

excel spreadsheet


Potential benefits▪ ▪ ▪

Potential actions▪ ▪

Potential challenges▪

Potential benefits▪ ▪

▪ Potential actions▪ ▪

Potential challenges▪ ▪

Idea #9Develop and implement a shared principal training pipeline to recruit , train and support a new generation of principals that are prepared to lead new and existing schools successfully in order to effectively eliminate the achievement gap.

Benefit to students (how to measure and target impact)Students would benefit by having school principals that are trained in turning around failing schools, an/or providing opportunities to students via the development of new schools with proven academic and operational models.

Considerations for district Considerations for Charters

Idea development: idea template (1/2) SAMPLE TOOLf


Idea #9 (continued)

Next Steps (including content development and implementation)

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

▪

ResponsibilityActivity Timing

▪ ▪ ▪

▪ ▪ ▪

Key Success Factors Potential risks

Idea development: idea template (2/2) SAMPLE TOOLf






community










1

4

5

7

6

2

3


4

20

43

49

13

26

47

Page

51


What to include in your work plan

▪ Dates for district-charter workshops/ meetings

▪ Work charter-specific convenings and/or communications into the plan

▪ Timing for securing buy-in and ultimately, signatures/letters of support

Workshop/ meeting schedule

Charter convenings/ communication

Description

▪ Deadlines for different iterations of the compact (e.g., first, final draft)

▪ Make explicit when each phase of the content development process will occur

Content development phases

Guidance

▪ Put on calendar to create urgency and “deadlines”

▪ Decide on meeting objectives and participants upfront

▪ Leverage existing meetings and communications where possible

▪ Create timing that complements the overall work plan

▪ Typically 2-4 weeks to finalize buy-in at the end of the process

▪ Helpful to build into the entire process as well

▪ Most cities had the same 1-2 people creating and revising drafts throughout the process

▪ Customize phases and timing to city context

Compact draft deadlines

Securing buy-in

Example


Example work plan from cohort 1 city

Workshop 1Oct 7

Workshop 2Nov 5

Compact signingNov 15-Dec 2

Activities

Finalize compact draftNov 6-19

▪ Develop a comprehensive list of collaboration ideas▪ Prioritize ideas to develop in further detail▪ Identify next steps and owners

▪ Prioritized set of collaborative ideas to pursue further

▪ Next steps and owners for each

Deliverables

▪ Further develop priority ideas including– Working through details and challenges– Engaging subject matter experts– Identifying goals and progress measures

▪ Create first draft of compact document

▪ Further developed priority ideas for discussion at Workshop 2

▪ Review, discuss, and refine proposed Compact collaboration ideas

▪ Identify any additional ideas for potential inclusion▪ Identify other local supporters and assign owners to

pursue▪ Agree upon process for compact finalization

▪ Agreed-upon in-depth ideas for collaboration (including key elements, metrics, etc.) for which language can be developed

▪ Plan for engaging other supporters▪ Agreed-upon process for compact

finalization

▪ Sign final Compact▪ Gather letters of support from other local supporters▪ (partial overlap with finalization of compact draft)

▪ Signed Compact, Letters of Support, and next steps for collaboration

▪ Board approval

▪ Circulate drafts▪ Finalize language

▪ Specific compact language around proposed areas of collaboration

▪ Collaboration metrics of success identified

Interim workOct 9-Nov 4

▪ Interviews of several key participants/stakeholders▪ Communicate the compact process and approach

▪ Initial list of potential ideas for compact▪ Initial list of incoming hopes and concerns▪ Draft timeline and approach

Pre-workSep 1-Oct 6

EXAMPLE #1


Example work plan from cohort 1 city

▪ Hold meeting with charter, district, and stakeholder (and union) leaders to align on compact participation and sign the “Broad commitments common to all compact cities” [see page 15]

Aug 13

▪ Hold individual meetings and calls with key stakeholders to develop city-specific ideas

Aug 14-Nov 1

▪ Communicate the compact and build initial buy-in for city participation

Pre-Aug 13

EXAMPLE #2

▪ District and charter “leads” jointly create first draft of compact

▪ Distribute draft to compact participants to review and capture input

Nov 1-5

▪ Participants review draft compact and capture input (e.g., questions, elements believed to be most important, elements missing, concerns,)

Nov 8-12

▪ Hold workshop to review and discuss draft compact, agree on changes, and align on path forward

Nov 16

▪ Conference call to review revised draft and agree on changes/next steps

Nov 22

▪ Thanksgiving▪ Compact draft revised and redistributed

for input▪ Individual meetings with participants to

review latest draft and secure support

Nov 23-30

▪ Compact draft revised and redistributed for input

Nov 17-19

▪ Conference call to finalize draft and agree on changes/next steps

▪ Final changes/updates made

Dec 1

▪ Collect final signaturesDec 2

▪ Hold meeting with union leader to review draft compact and secure letter of support

▪ Finalize compact

Dec 3

Note: This city had a small number of charters, allowing all to more easily and manageably participate in every meeting/call. This also allowed the city incorporate the buy-in process along the way, and have a quick turnaround at process conclusion






community










1

4

5

7

6

2

3


Page

4

20

43

49

13

26

47

51


Mitigating risks

▪ Ensure that the right leaders are “at the table” during the process to help facilitate the political process (e.g., Mayor’s staff, senior leadership in the district)

▪ Make honest assessment of longer timing and process steps required, and build into the process (some cities built in over 4 weeks just for buy-in process/bureaucracy)

▪ Discuss and incorporate known overlaps with union input/priorities▪ Be deliberate about when and how to engage. Some cities decided to engage the

union at compact process kick-off, others felt it better to engage after creating fuller alignment among stakeholders

▪ Secure a meaningful number/representation of charters to move forward with the compact, while ensuring that all parties are heard and included in the discussion

▪ Create opportunities for those that are not fully aligned to continue to participate in the process if not signing (this should be an ongoing discussion and living document)

Bureaucracy and political delays

Union engagement

Lack of alignment within charter community

Potential risk Potential mitigation strategies

▪ Develop compact content and process with an eye toward a “board-ready” compact (e.g., language, content)

▪ Create coordinated board outreach plan to advocate and build buy-in

▪ Build in commitments/ideas that can feasibly be pursued without board approval

Need for board approval






community










1

4

5

7

6

2

3


4

20

43

49

13

26

47

Page

51


Implementation planning ideas captured from Cohort 1Topics

▪ Hold annual meeting specifically to consider revisions and updates that will ensure the collaboration remains relevant, timely, and effective

▪ Invite leaders that did not sign to participate in meetings to challenge thinking and foster future buy-in

Maintaining a living document

▪ Designate a 2 person district-charter team to lead each commitment

▪ Hire a full-time project manager▪ Create a charter school liaison to the district to help organize the

charter community around this and other efforts

Capacity and resources

▪ Create metrics to monitor progress on individual commitments▪ Report publicly on implementation progress every six months▪ Create detailed work plans with clear action item owners

Measurement and accountability

▪ Look for quick wins in implementation to build momentum and positive press about what the compact can accomplish

▪ Coordinate communication with and in the media to minimize “gotcha” tactics

▪ Pursue additional signatures and letters to broaden support

Risk mitigation






community










1

4

5

7

6

2

3


4

20

43

49

13

26

47

Page

51


Sources

▪ Interviews with district and charter leaders

▪ National Best Cooperative Practices Between Charter and Traditional Public Schools Conference, Sept 27-28, 2010, Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools

Levels of collaboration

▪ Minimal – Partners cooperate and make small concessions to enable each other

▪ Moderate – Partners selectively share resources and expertise to address mutual needs

▪ Deep – Partners deeply collaborate to address mutual needs

Notes and definitions

Examples of district-charter collaboration: overview

1) * = considering, but have not yet implemented

2) Collaboration: an arrangement that is jointly undertaken or involves an exchange of benefits

3) District/charter action: an arrangement where one partner primarily offers benefits to the other partner; these may be components of a comprehensive collaboration plan


Minimal▪ . . .

Moderate▪ Collaboration – District created the Charter School Advisory Council, where top leaders from the district and charter

schools meet monthly. Council results include joint professional development for district and charter school teachers, charter leaders supporting the district in reviewing new charter applications, and charter schools having free access to the district’s alternative out-of-school suspension program (Hillsborough County)

▪ Collaboration* – District may implement a process to expedite renewal for high-performing charters, in exchange for charters sharing codified best practices with the district (various) . . .

Deep▪ . . .

Governance policy


Minimal▪ District action – By law, if charters share a building where new space becomes available, they must refuse it before

it can be offered to a district school (D.C.)

▪ District action – By law, school districts are required to invite charter schools to discuss their capital construction needs before the district submits a bond request for facilities funding; however, districts are not required to include the charter schools’ request as part of the district’s request. (Colorado)

Moderate▪ Collaboration – District provides the charter school a cost-effective lease and the charter provides the district with its

innovative programming for teacher professional development and arts curriculum (San Antonio)

▪ District action – District pays for the necessary capital renovations on shared facilities to ensure that buildings have the necessary life safety renovations and are ADA compliant (Chicago)

▪ District action – By law, school districts must make its unused facilities available to locally approved charter schools without lease or rental charges, although maintenance and other costs can be charged (Georgia). NOTE: This applies only to locally approved charter schools.

▪ District action* – District may advocate to rationalize building safety codes for traditional public schools to reduce district facilities costs; cost savings may fund additional facilities for charters (various)

Resources -- facilities


Deep▪ District action – Charters receive facilities (including many new buildings) effectively free, paying the district only

1.75% of per-pupil funding for students served; this fee supports operating services, supplies, and professional services that the district provides to charter schools. Charters are responsible for general maintenance and operating costs (New Orleans)

▪ District action – Districts offer charters free facilities and all maintenance services (like traditional public schools) (Hartford)

▪ Collaboration – District offers facilities to charter schools that have been approved through an RFP process (Minneapolis, Chicago, although in 2010, for the first time, the district did not offer buildings)

▪ Collaboration – A Synergy charter school and a district school who share a facility have deliberately moved beyond co-location to co-operatively running the building. The schools share and jointly staff lunch and recess and hold joint staff meetings (Los Angeles)

▪ Collaboration* – District may reach out to charters for best practices in efficient facilities development; cost savings may fund additional facilities for charters (various)

▪ District action* – District may establish a facilities oversight board to identify available facilities, match availability to school growth projections, and communicate facilities decisions to both district and charters (various)

▪ Collaboration* – District may encourage new district and charter school applicants that could share facilities to submit applications to public school choice process together (Los Angeles)

Resources – facilities (cont.)


Minimal▪ District action – District planned a “sustainability retreat” with top leaders of new district and charter school support

organizations to understand and address areas of similar concern, including external funding, level of school support, and community support (New York)

Moderate▪ District action – District provides food services, transportation and other support services to charter schools (New

Orleans, Hartford)

▪ Collaboration – Louisiana Charter Schools Organization offers its legal staff to both the district and charters (New Orleans)

▪ District action – District provides a “circulator” bus that has multiple pick up and drop off locations for both district and charter school students (Denver)

▪ District action – District provides charter schools with access to low-interest rate loans to support general operating costs, delayed receivables, or growth capital needs (Lodi, CA)

Deep▪ District action – District allows charters to bid for food services at competitive rates from other providers (Denver)

▪ District action* – District is considering policy and practice changes to enable per-pupil budgeting so that charters receive equal per-pupil funding (various)

Resources – non-facilities


Minimal▪ Collaboration* – Districts and charters may develop a marketing campaign to present a unified charter-district “face”

to community (e.g., jointly authored communications about city education options) (various)

Moderate▪ Collaboration – District superintendent commissioned a district-charter working group to address tensions over

special education policy which required charters to take on low-performing, district special education staff. Working group made changes to district staffing procedures to give charters greater input into special education staffing decisions for their schools (Denver)

▪ Collaboration – A charter school became an autonomous high-needs special education site, receiving district funding for special education students but retaining flexibility of special education programming (Denver)

▪ Collaboration* – District and charter may jointly commission a study to examine outcomes for special education students in charters vs. district schools (various)

Deep▪ Collaboration – District and charters (with support from Get Smart Schools) are developing a data system and web

interface to unify enrollment across district and charter schools. New system will be accompanied by a marketing campaign to inform parents about all school choices in the city (Denver)

▪ Collaboration – New Schools for New Orleans and the district jointly identify low-performing district schools and authorize charters to take over these schools (typically retaining all students and no staff) (New Orleans)

▪ Collaboration – District “turned around” a low-performing school by inviting two charters and a traditional public school to take on all students from the closed school. Charters maintained right to selecting students by lottery but agreed to meet district needs by coordinating lottery with other schools in the boundary (Denver)

Resources – access


Minimal▪ District action – District superintendent uses scores to identify high-performing charters and invites those

organizations to high-profile and key decision-making events in the district (Baltimore, New Orleans, New York City)

Moderate▪ Collaboration – All charter data is available through the district student data system (Baltimore, Denver)

▪ Collaboration – Friends of Choice in Urban Schools, New Leaders for New Schools, and the Achievement Network (with the help of the state superintendent’s office) hosted a Data Summit, bringing together charter and district school leadership teams to review state test results (D.C.)

▪ Charter action – Arizona Charter School Association created student growth percentiles to measure student progress and worked in partnership with the Arizona Department of Education to post online every district and charter school’s median growth percentile for grades four through eight (Arizona)

▪ District action* – District may share sophisticated data analysis tools (currently only available to district schools) with charter schools (various)

▪ Collaboration* – District schools began utilizing data practice vendor in several district schools after seeing charters benefit from improved data practices. District is considering regularly convening staff from all district and charter schools engaged with the vendor to share insights and best practices (various)

▪ Charter action* – High-performing charter may share its real-time, IT-enabled formative assessment tools with the district (various)

Data infrastructure, access, and use


Deep▪ Collaboration – New Schools for New Orleans performs school reviews for district and charter schools and advises

district and charter community on which schools should be closed or expanded (New Orleans)

▪ Collaboration – District and charters (including Achievement First) advocated for legislative changes and wrote an MOU to count charter scores toward district performance (Hartford)

▪ Charter action – Achievement First shared best practices in data use with district; district replicated one element, “Data Days” (professional development days held several times per year to adjust instruction based on interim student achievement data) (New Haven)

▪ Collaboration – Edward W. Brook Charter School and the Clarence Edwards Middle School formed a one-year partnership to develop formative math assessments, share best practices in analyzing data from the assessments, and target student support based on the data analysis (Boston)

▪ Collaboration* – District and charters may co-advocate to include charter school scores in district performance calculations, e.g., blended accountability for district and charter schools sharing a campus (various)

Data infrastructure, access, and use (cont.)


Minimal

▪ Collaboration – District organized school visits between charter schools and “new schools” (district schools with greater autonomy) to collaboratively address challenges at individual schools (Baltimore)

Moderate

▪ Collaboration – District and charters, in partnership with New Schools for New Orleans, worked together to bring New Teacher Project and other human capital providers to the city (New Orleans)

▪ Collaboration – District and charter schools developed the Project for School Innovation (PSI), to share best practices among educators, publish learnings, and conduct trainings (Boston)

▪ Collaboration* – District and charters may establish professional learning communities for best-practice sharing, especially in challenging content areas (e.g., math institutes) (various)

Deep

▪ Collaboration – District, Get Smart Schools (charter organization) and Teach For America co-developed principal training program (now in its third year), which aims to train and eventually license 10-15 principals per year for Denver charter and performance schools (district schools with greater autonomy) (Denver)

▪ Charter action – Achievement First and district co-wrote i3 proposal for Achievement First to train 5 principals per year for New Haven Schools; principals in training would split time between residency in high-performing Achievement First Schools and district placements (New Haven)

Human capital solutions


Deep (cont.)

▪ Collaboration – Leading CMOs (Uncommon Schools, KIPP, and Achievement First ) collaborated with NYC Chancellor Joel Klein and Hunter College to found and develop curriculum for Teacher U, a practice-based teacher preparation program for future district and charter teachers (up to 500 teachers per year) (New York)

▪ Collaboration – District launched “RSD Pathways” to pilot aligned evaluation, professional development and career pathways for teachers and school leaders; district and several CMOs (Firstline Schools, KIPP, ReNEW) are applying for funding to expand the program to all schools in the city (New Orleans)

▪ Charter action – Reading specialists at a Rhode Island charter school are serving as instructional coaches, providing in-class training to their public school colleagues as part of a program to help boost reading skills among their students (Rhode Island)

▪ Collaboration – Stoughton and Foxborough School Districts and Foxborough Regional Charter School exchanged professional development days; Stoughton hosted sessions on data-driven analyses and in exchange Foxborough Charter provided trainings on curriculum mapping (Stoughton and Foxborough, MA)

▪ Charter action – Green Dot leadership academy trains several principals for district schools each year (LA)

▪ Collaboration – District and Charters are jointly creating the Rio Grande Valley Center for Teaching and Leading Excellence to develop a permanent and sustainable capacity to recruit, select, onboard, evaluate, reward, support, train, and retain teachers and school leaders for both LEAs, including multiple pathways to teacher and school leadership. (IDEA and PSJA ISD, TX)

▪ Collaboration* – District and several CMOs are considering partnering to develop scalable value-added model for teacher evaluation and compensation; district will lend databases, while CMOs will build and test value-added model (various)

Human capital solutions (cont.)


Minimal

▪ Charter action – Boston Renaissance Charter Public School students and staff, in partnership with the Wang Center’s Arts Can Teach Program, piloted an 8-week lunchtime musical/cultural experience called “Eats and Beats” that eventually spread to several Boston school districts (Boston)

▪ District action – District expanded charter authorization guidelines to permit charters with non-traditional instructional models (e.g., no textbooks) (LA)

▪ District action – District simulated charter innovation model by authorizing an increased number of new schools (district schools with significant autonomy) (Baltimore)

Moderate

▪ Collaboration – The Oakland Inquiry Project engages ten Oakland school leaders from district schools and charter schools in a sustained, facilitated inquiry project for one year; this project must focus on initiating or perfecting an Early College model of providing access to college courses for all students. The project concludes with a published "Field Guide" of recommendations, tips, and strategies for use by other schools and school leaders seeking to implement similar innovative practices (Oakland)

▪ Collaboration – A program that assists students with graduating on time was initiated at a charter school and expanded to several district schools through shared staff (a college transition counselor and a community outreach coordinator), resources and internships (Indianapolis)

Innovative school models, tools, and supports


Moderate

▪ Collaboration – An elementary charter school that emphasizes second-language acquisition by immersing learners in Spanish worked with the school district to develop a language maintenance program in the district middle school. The district is able to gain out-of-district revenue for the program (near St. Paul, Minnesota)

▪ Collaboration – Inspired by the Harlem Children’s Zone, district and charter school principals in the same neighborhood meet regularly and work together with community partners (D.C.)

▪ Collaboration – Charter school parents, the charter school state association, and the state education department are working together to establish one statewide virtual school (Indiana)

▪ Charter action – Charter school is distributing its award-winning mentorship program to a district high school (Santa Fe)

▪ Collaboration* – District and charters may hold joint sessions for district and charter teachers in schools that focus on the same next-generation areas (e.g., STEM) to share learnings and collaboratively develop winning school models (various)

Deep

▪ Collaboration* – District and charters create joint working committee to identify the most effective online learning options by content area, and cross-enroll district and charter students in those courses (various)

Innovative school models, tools, and supports (cont.)

Compact toolkit: working draft

Documents

Transcript of Compact toolkit: working draft