TPC Administrative Services Committee Recommendations

Transition Planning Commission
Administrative Organization Committee Update
February 23, 2012
Draft For discussion only
Purpose of this pre-read document

Bring all TPC members up-to-speed on the research, context, and work that this committee has done, leading to the development of two options for the TPC's consideration Help the TPC members to clearly understand the strengths, weaknesses, and implications of each of the options And ultimately, to enable the TPC to make an informed decision when members vote on 3/1
Copyright 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
When considering this document, please focus your attention on slides 38-45, which describe the two options in detail
A worksheet is included on pages 50-51 to help TPC members organize thoughts and note questions
2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx
Contents
Executive summary
Task of the Administrative Organization & Governance Committee Guiding principles and aspirations
Research overview Description of the options Frequently asked questions Worksheet
Executive summary (I)

The Administrative Organization and Governance Committee's first charge is to develop a recommendation on the high-level administrative structure for the merged school district This was designed as one of the TPC's first recommendations, in order to: Enable the TPC to communicate a key element of its plan with stakeholders Inform the subsequent work of this and other committees This first recommendation is an organizing framework; other key design choices will follow later The "high-level administrative structure" of a school district includes three key elements: Governance: To whom the school district is ultimately responsible Organization: How schools are grouped, and how they are connected to the central office Management: Decision ownership across the organization The Administrative Organization and Governance Committee began its work by articulating its aspirations for the structure, which complement the TPC's guiding principles, and include: Equal, accessible, high-quality education Keeping management decisions close to the students Keeping schools connected to their local communities Efficient use of resources; spending on management the minimum needed to be effective
2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Copyright 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Executive summary (II)

In order to develop options to consider, the Administrative Organization and Governance Committee first conducted research in three areas: Structure of high-performing school districts around the country, and any emerging trends Academic research on district size and structure Baseline of the current administrative structures of Memphis City Schools and Shelby County Schools Two structures emerged: centralized model and portfolio model A centralized, single-operator model is the predominant district structure in U.S. history Many examples of both high-performing and low-performing districts High-perf. districts studied include Gwinnett (GA), Charlotte-Mecklenburg (NC), Montgomery (MD) Among high-performing united districts, several common traits: focused strategy and sustained attention on small number of priorities, stable leadership, equity of opportunity, principals empowered to be agents of change The portfolio model is a relatively new design, most developed in New Orleans and Denver A portfolio model includes multiple operators and governance arrangements, typically including both schools managed by the district and privately-managed charter schools. Schools are held to common performance standards with no preference to governance model, new schools are cultivated to replace failing schools, and district-charter school collaboration is encouraged With this model, New Orleans narrowed state proficiency gap by more than 50% in past 5 years 25+ districts around the country are pursuing this model in partnership with the Center for Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington
Executive summary (III)

The Committee is bringing two options to the TPC for consideration. Both options include elements of both models described on the previous page. The Committee believes that both options have the potential to deliver upon the aspirations of the TPC and lead to academic success for students Many elements of the administrative structure are common across both options: Governance by a 7 or 13-member elected school board District divided into 6 regions to bring support closer to the schools Many schools sitting outside of the regional model, including Achievement School Dist., charter schools Principal empowerment as a key aspect of the management approach Option 1: United A well-managed, centralized system that follows the traditional design of a school district Lean regional offices to support and manage principals Option 2: Path to Autonomy System that supports an option for schools or groups of schools to operate autonomously (if they choose to do so), under a performance-based contract with the district. These schools either would become charter schools or would have a status similar to charter schools Because not all schools will follow the path to autonomy, a more traditional governance structure (similar to the United option) would exist in parallel
Contents
Executive summary
Task of the Administrative Organization & Governance Committee

Guiding principles and aspirations
Administrative Organization and Governance Committee Agreement (1)

TPC members Martavius Jones (Co-chair), David Pickler (Co-chair), Joyce Avery, Staley Cates, Mayor Mark Luttrell, Mayor Keith McDonald, Barbara Prescott
Recommendations on a decision or design

High-level structure for school district that addresses: Governance and management Link between the central office and schools (e.g. sub-districts or clusters) Decision ownership Schools footprint Est. number and size of schools Feeder patterns School portfolio, assignment policies School autonomy, accountability Central office design Functions of first 1-2 layers reporting to Superintendent (no staffing numbers) Organizational structure
Recommendations on a process
Out-of-scope
Drawing the organizational chart beyond the first 1-2 layers reporting to the Superintendent
Recommendations
Making recommendations on particular staff positions
Administrative Organization and Governance Committee Agreement (2)
Key inputs
TPC guiding principles Current baseline of: student performance, demographics, geographic presence, and programs delivered across schools Baseline of current organizational structure Benchmarking of best practices at other school districts Community and stakeholder feedback
Milestones
Mid to late January: Report of Assessment Committee to full Administrative Organization committee on student baseline Complete understanding of current state organizational structure of both districts Complete benchmarking on other districts Mid February: Recommendation to full TPC on high-level administrative structure Late March: Recommendations to full TPC on schools footprint Mid May: Recommendations to full TPC on central office design
Interdependencies
Two-way process Educational Services: School footprint and choice; autonomy and accountability; central academic support function Finance: Funds required/available to resource administration design Logistics: Design of support functions (e.g. technology, transportation, facilities, to support organizational structure) Input to Admin. Organization Assessment: Baseline of student needs Community Engagement: Community input and buy-in to organizational structure Output from Admin. Organization Educational Services: Academic priorities HR/Personnel: Organization structure to inform estimated staff levels
Work-plan
Contents
Executive summary Task of the Administrative Organization & Governance Committee
Guiding principles and aspirations TPC guiding principles Administrative Organization Committee aspirations Community input
Reminder: TPC Guiding principles

The academic success and well-being of our students come first Educators and staff are our most important resource We have high expectations We are all in this together
We aim to enhance our district by balancing stability with needed change We desire excellent community schools and options for all We believe parent engagement is essential We must save where we can to fund what we need We value strong leadership This is our once-in-a-lifetime opportunity
10
Aspirations for administrative structure

Premium is placed on equal, accessible, high-quality education for all students Places management decision-making close to students, so unique needs are met Keeps schools connected to local community Enables effective use of innovation in delivery systems Enables district to make district-wide changes when needed Efficient use of resources; keeps spending on management to minimum needed to be effective
Enables district to attract top talent Connects schools that serve the same children over time (feeder patterns) enabling PK-12 coordination and accountability Enables senior management to make informed decisions on principal evaluation and gives them flexibility in compensating, promoting and exiting principals Connects schools with similar challenges, enabling both peer learning and specialized support from the district Allows for some degree of choice Ensures governance structure is responsive to county and creates a sense of community ownership
11
Community concerns from listening sessions

Key themes Decrease in academic quality and rigor Reduction of special needs programs Loss of local control to serve local needs Bigger is not better Lack of stability for teachers and support staff Supporting quotes and comments Fear of bringing curriculum down instead of bringing it up Concerned about social promotion of failing students What assurances do I have that my child will be able to finish their academic program Concern is that special needs children [will be] the first ones left behind Concerned about special education and hearing impaired program Fears loss of community control Fear losing autonomy to serve specific needs of students Hope for sub districts with autonomy to serve specific needs of their areas We moved here for the schools
Admin
Educational services
Concerned about raw size of combined district Bigger is not better have seen good districts go bad keep whats good and adopt best practices Concerned that teachers could be bumped out of their schools by those with more seniority Concerned about nutritional workers I am a truck driver who loves his job and I work with people who love their job as well and need it Concerned about merger's effect on cafeteria workers and pay
12
HR
Contents
Executive summary Task of the Administrative Organization & Governance Committee Guiding principles and aspirations
Research overview External benchmarking

Description of the options Frequently asked questions Worksheet
13
Overview of external benchmarking: sources consulted
District leaders
Chicago Public Schools Denver Public Schools Gwinnett County Public Schools Montgomery County Public Schools Prince George's County Public Schools
Nonprofit leaders
Center for Reinventing Public Education New Schools for New Orleans
BCG experts
Hillsborough County Public Schools New York City Department of Education
14
Key questions regarding administrative organization
Governance Model1
To whom is the school district ultimately accountable? Will there be a single governance body or multiple if multiple how are roles divided? What is the best size for a school board? How should school board districts be drawn and should there be at-large positions?
Organization Design
Should there be sub-districts? How many? How should the middle layer be organized (e.g. geography, grade level, performance)? If geography, how should the lines be drawn? Who manages principals? How should the district's central office be structured? How do you manages schools of choice, charters, and the ASD within subdistricts?
Management Approach
At what level are key staffing, curriculum, and budget decision made?
How much autonomy do principals have, and what can they do to earn more? How do districts manage failing schools? What is the management link between the superintendent and schools?
1. TPC has limited influence on some of these questions

15
Two models emerged from research
Providers of public education
Single (traditional district)
Single plus some charter schools
System of schools
Role of the center
More centralized, regions primarily manage principals
Highly autonomous regions
Small center primarily focused on results
Minimal
Earned
Geographic organization Community accountability, beyond central school board
Follow political and community boundaries
Keep communities intact; with diversity where possible
Radial regions to ensure mix of performance
Many schools autonomous, operate outside regional structure Elected boards oversee school(s)
Informal: PTA, principal
Appointed boards oversee school(s)
Center-driven strategy model

Source: BCG analysis
Highly decentralized portfolio model
16
School-level autonomy
Granted to all
Successful center-driven models have several commonalities

Many higher-performing large districts have commonalities in their approach E.g., Hillsborough, Gwinnett, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Montgomery 1 Focused strategy and sustained attention on a small number of priorities that drive student achievement All structures and programs coherent with strategy Data-driven accountability within the system, to manage and reward performance, adjust course when necessary
2 Stable leadership Allows district to build on strategy over time Creates trust between district, principals, teachers and community 3 Equity of opportunity Deep commitment to high expectations for all children Assets leveraged to benefit the entire community, often through allocating funds to schools based on student needs (e.g., weighted-student funding) 4 Principals empowered to be agents of change Principal autonomy over staffing, and in some cases budget Regional superintendents support and manage principals, provide link to central office
Source: BCG interviews 1/12
17
The center-driven strategy model poses several potential challenges, which districts are working to address
Potential challenges
Serving students with diverse needs
Strategies to address
Insist on common, rigorous standards for all students While differentiating resources and instructional strategies to meet students where they are Clear focus on student achievement Set priorities around drivers of student achievement In Montgomery County, set ultimate goal on ACT/SAT scores Identified key drivers, starting in Kindergarten, that contributed to schools' ability to meet that goal Leverage resources of entire district to meet all students' needs Align behind idea of "equity of opportunity" Invest higher-income communities in value that a high-quality school district brings to the broader community Leverage principals as the key connection point with parents Promote shared accountability and engage parents in both the results and the strategies going forward Create multiple formal and informal avenues for parents and community members to engage
18
Allocating funds
Community engagement, given lack of elected bodies at regional or school level

Source: BCG interviews 1/12
Prioritizing among wide range of educational goals
Portfolio strategy offers new approach to school district role and relationship with schools
Traditional School Districts
Portfolio School Districts
One centralized school system
System of schools
Schools as permanent investments
Schools as contingent on performance
25+ districts are using elements of this strategy, including Baltimore, Denver, Hartford and New Orleans
Source: Contracted Providers: Overcoming Challenges in a Portfolio School District. Center of Reinventing Public Education, May 2011.
19
Government as sole operator
Government as authorizer, diverse operators
What are the elements of a portfolio strategy?

Paul Hill, of the Center for Reinventing Public Education, has identified seven key elements
Distinctive elements
1 Options and choices for all
students
How it works
Open new schools with outside providers (e.g. charters) School choice for all families Equity and access for special education and ELL students All schools control staff selection, pay, assignment and budget Openness to new models of teaching and organization All schools receive pupil-based funding Schools run by different operators share facilities and resources Recruitment of new principals and teachers to district Performance-based teacher retention and pay Schools free to select support from independent providers (e.g. professional development, business and insurance services, facilities management) Common student performance standards for all schools Data systems that measure student growth Closure of persistently low performing district and charter schools Strong communication plan to convey information (including communications related to any school closures) Feedback loop for parents and community members
2 School autonomy 3 Pupil-based funding 4 Talent-seeking strategy 5 Open market for support
services
6 Performance-based
accountability
7 Extensive community
engagement
Source: "Portfolio School Districts Project," Center for Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington. December 2011.
20
New Orleans post-Hurricane Katrina is the purest example of a portfolio strategy

Recovery School District (Louisiana Bd of Elem & Sec Education)
Orleans Parish School Board
RSD Sup't
Directly operates 23 schools
Nonnetwork charters
x 22 schools
KIPP
x 6 schools
Algiers charter schools

x 9 schools
Nonnetwork charters
x 9 schools
NOPS Sup't
Directly operates 5 schools
Choice
x 2 schools
FirstLine
x 3 schools
UNO
x 4 schools
ReNEW
x 2 schools
Basic facts: 2010-11 student enrollment: 39,877 Students in charter schools: 71% Students receiving free/reduced lunch: 84% Each independent charter school reports to its own board of directors; network charters report to board at CMO level
Source: "The 2011 State of Public Education in New Orleans" Cowen Institute. July 2011.
21
The portfolio strategy poses several potential challenges, which New Orleans is working to address
Potential challenges
Holding independentlymanaged schools accountable Families navigating a multitude of options
Approaches to address in New Orleans

Charter schools authorized on 5-year contracts Performance measures enable poor-performing schools to be closed
Special education
Moving toward having specialized charter schools for severe special needs These schools would offer consulting services to other schools Currently, all schools contract for own transportation Buildings offered to schools as free leases Capital projects owned by district Schools responsible for ongoing maintenance
Transportation Facilities
22
Central district manages enrollment system 95% of schools open-enrollment (some magnet) If more students then spaces, goes to lottery Considering reserving 50% of lottery for students from geographic area schools would opt-in to this policy
Initial data suggest portfolio model is closing the gap between New Orleans and Louisiana state performance
Source: Graphic from New Schools for New Orleans

23
Portfolio model has contributed to reduction in number of academically unacceptable schools
Source: Graphics from New Schools for New Orleans; note graphs mis-labeled in source material ("Acceptable" and "Unacceptable" reversed)
24
Additional model considered: "chancellor model" with autonomous regions
Providers of public education
Single (traditional district)
Single plus some charter schools
System of schools
Role of the center
More centralized, regions primarily manage principals Minimal
Highly autonomous regions
Small center primarily focused on results
Geographic organization Community Accountability to accountability, school community beyond central school board
Follow political and community boundaries
Keep communities intact; with diversity where possible
Radial regions to ensure mix of performance
Many schools autonomous, operate outside regional structure Elected boards oversee school(s)
Informal: PTA, principal
Appointed boards oversee school(s)
"Chancellor model"
Source: BCG analysis

25
School-level autonomy
Earned
Granted to all
A model with limitations: "Chancellor model" (sub-districts with significant autonomy)

Role of regions in more centralized districts important, but limited
Principal management Evaluation Support and coaching Targeted support for struggling schools Extra assistance in developing improvement plans Support with staffing, teacher professional development Link with central office To communicate district strategies, policies to principals To help principals effectively leverage central office resources
Districts have experienced challenges in having sub-districts with significant autonomy

Several districts we talked to have moved away from models with heavily staffed, more autonomous regions. Some of the rationale: Additional personnel costs Duplication of work Misalignment between regions and central office In 2002, New York City moved away from a system of 32 elected community school boards for several reasons Community school boards ineffective in many lowerincome areas Even where community boards were strong, they failed to produce improvements in schools Lack of accountability Confusion in governance and management between chancellor, central board, community boards, community superintendents and principals
Sources: "Growing Outrage Leads Back to Centralized Leadership," New York Times June 7, 2002; The Great School Wars: A History of New York City Public Schools, Diane Ravitch, 2000; BCG interviews
26
Contents
Research overview Academic literature

27
Academic research is mixed on the impact school district size has on student achievement
One set of studies show district size is negatively associated with educational productivity (e.g. achievement levels, dropout rates, grade retention rates, and college enrollment rates) ...however, it is important to recognize the limitations of these studies "Controlling for characteristics of the student population and other environmental factors, including class and school size, district size appears to hinder educational achievement." 1 "Increased district size was found to be significantly associated with lower academic achievement" 2 For example... Despite showing a negative correlation between size and achievement, the magnitude of the findings in the Driscoll study are small. The study finds that if a district increases by ~150,000 students, achievement lowers by 8.63 API5 points, based on a 1,000 point scale. The Trani study is based on school districts in Oregon, where the largest school district has ~40,000 students. "As a variable, district size seems quite remote from student learning." 3 "Those who studied district size, concluded its influence on school performance was complex and contradictory." 4 In 2008, after investing $2 billion in making schools smaller and seeing only a limited impact on achievement, the Gates Foundation shifted its attention and resources to teacher effectiveness and other reform strategies "One of the things we learned from that experience is that school structure isnt enough, the schools need really good teachers in the classrooms" -Chris Williams, press secretary at the Gates Foundation6
Other studies show district size has little to no direct influence on student achievement The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's experience with small schools is also instructive
1. Driscoll, Halcoussis, and Svorny (2003), School District Size and Student Performance; 2. Trani (2009), The Relationship Between Student Achievement, School District Economies of Scale, School District Size, and Student Socioeconomic Status; 3. Howley, Bickel (2000) The Influence of Scale on School Performance: A Multi-Level Extension of the Matthew Principle; 4. Howley, Bickel (2000) based on research from Bidwell and Kasarda (1975), School District Organization and Student Achievement. 5. Adjusted Performance Index - a weighted average of Stanford 9 test scores used in CA. 6. NBC education nation, Gotham Gazette
28
Districts of a range of sizes have produced strong results

In 2011, the Center for American Progress led a district-by-district evaluation of U.S. educational productivity
National effort to gauge the efficiency of over 9,000 districts, in more than 45 states Study measures the academic achievement a school district produces relative to its educational spending, while controlling for factors outside a district's control such as cost of living, students in poverty, and special education students All districts evaluated were categorized using this scale:
Based on the study, 901 school districts with enrolments ranging from 265Number of Schools students to 259,000 achieved the greatest ROI1
Enrolment in '000s
260 250 240 230 220 210 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Broward County, FL 319 Schools Palm Beach, FL 269 Schools
Wake County, NC 116 Schools
Jefferson County, CO 164 Schools
Shelby County, TN 50 Schools
Warner, SD 3 Schools
District
1. Basic ROI measure - rates school districts on how much academic achievement they get for each dollar spent, relative to other districts in their state. Data adjusted for a variety of factors including cost-of-living differences as well as higher concentrations of low-income, non-English-speaking, and special education students Source: Center for American Progress, Return on Educational Investment Report, Jan 2011
29
Research shows several factors proven to impact student achievement

District-level leadership Meta-analysis of 24 studies found "significant relationship between district leadership and student achievement."1 Successful leadership practices identified: collaborative goal setting process, nonnegotiable goals for achievement and instruction, board alignment with and support of district goals, monitoring goals for achievement and instruction, Supt. provides defined autonomy for principals but maintains alignment with district goals Meta-analysis of 70 studies shows the average effect size between school-level leadership and student achievement is .252 Analysis identified 21 leadership responsibilities with statistically significant relationships to student achievement.2 Example responsibilities: establishing a set of operating procedures, involving teachers in design of important decisions One study showed students with effective teachers for three consecutive years raised test scores from the 63rd percentile to the 87th. Similarly, for students with low-performing teachers, performance decreased from the 58th percentile to the 40th.3,4 A range of instructional strategies have been shown to enhance student achievement5 Examples: reinforcing effort and providing recognition, nonlinguistic representations, cooperative learning, generating and testing hypotheses, activating prior knowledge
School-level leadership
Effective teaching
Key question: How does administrative structure enable effectiveness in these areas?
1. Waters, Marzano (2006) School District Leadership That Works: The Effect of Superintendent Leadership on Student Achievement, The matter of size: A review of the research on relationships between school and district size; 2. Marzano (2000) McRELs meta-analysis of research on the school and teacher impacts on student achievement; 3. Jordan, Mendro, & Weerasinghe (1997). Teacher effects on longitudinal student achievement. 4. 1st grade students average performance on the math section of the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. 5. Waters, Marzano, & McNulty (2003).
30
Contents
Research overview Baseline of current structure at MCS and SCS

31
Memphis City Schools (I)

Key elements of administrative organization design
Governance
District governed by an elected school board Prior to merged board, included 9 elected board members 7 represent districts, 2 at-large Board recently trained on "reform governance" has enabled Board to focus on its most important roles, and strengthen relationship with district, school staff All schools organized by geography into 4 quadrants Regions include full feeder patterns, from Pre-K through high school Each region staffed with 6 staff to provide support to schools, led by Regional Superintendent Additionally, this year for the first time each region staffed with 6 grant-funded "SWAT team" members who provide support in specific content areas Several categories of schools, including: 44 optional schools with specialized programs 25 charter schools with 17 new applications for 2012-13 school year currently under state review 28 "Striving schools" turnaround program for schools on the High Priority List, based on NCLB standards 11 alternative schools for students expelled, suspended, or over-age 5 ASD schools co-managed by the district and the state All alternative/innovative schools are co-managed by their regional superintendent and a designated central office leader
32
Organization
Memphis City Schools (II)

Division of roles Management
Theory of change: Aligned teaching and learning Curriculum, scheduling, budget centralized to enable consistency across schools Important in light of student mobility Regional superintendents responsible for principal evaluation; also support principals in: Staffing decisions Using Title 1 budget Developing school improvement plans
Connecting similar schools
Struggling schools grouped together as "Striving Schools" under NCLB/FTTT receive additional support and dedicated leadership attention
Community engagement
Parent and Community Engagement (PACE): promotes parent advocacy, facilitates opportunities for parent involvement in schools School Site-Based Councils: make recommendations on school policies, lead fundraising efforts (one for each school) Annual parent demand summits: bring together information for parents on topics including state standards, TCAP, graduation requirements, truancy, etc.
33
Shelby County Schools (I)

Governance
District governed by an elected school board Prior to merged board, included 7 elected board members representing districts Board aimed to provide oversight while empowering the district management to manage
Organization
34
District managed as whole, no regional model 3 grade-level directors (Elementary, Middle and High) support schools with curriculum, data analysis Principals report ultimately to the Superintendent; interact with different central staff depending on the issue at hand Principal evaluation divided among most members of the executive staff and the 3 grade-level directors 1 charter school, as of fall 2011 2 International Baccalaureate programs open to students in entire district beyond that students can apply to schools outside their neighborhood zone
Shelby County Schools (II)

Division of roles Management
Connecting similar schools
Smaller district size and grade-level directors enable collaboration at grade level Monthly meetings bring together all principals
Community engagement
Each school has an active PTSA that meets monthly with school principals Members are frequently in schools Principals engage with PTSA leadership on a weekly basis Additionally, principals have close relationships with local elected officials: mayors frequently visit schools, communicate with principals
35
Aim to focus resources at building level, keep lean central administration Certain elements held "tight" by central administration, including: 60-minute math and 90-minute reading blocks Power standards prioritized among state, common core standards Common assessments Teacher professional learning communities (PLCs) Staffing, scheduling decisions left to principals Executive staff and 3 grade-level directors evaluate principals Each person evaluates 5-7 principals Principal selection led by committee of executive staff, other principals with ultimate decisions made by Superintendent
Contents
Executive summary Task of the Administrative Organization & Governance Committee Guiding principles and aspirations Research overview
Description of the options The similarities

Frequently asked questions Worksheet
36
Common across both options: geographically-based regions + schools outside of regional structure
Many schools operating outside of regional structure
Estimated # of schools
41 28 25 0 Current MCS charters Current SCS charters 2012 charter apps (in state review) ASD1 Innovation Total # of different zone school and/or types SIG turnaround1 Potential result by 2014
Same geographical regions
112
17
Suggest using the 4 current MCS regions and dividing the current SCS into 2 regions as a starting point, to maximize stability Regions will be of roughly equal enrollment Municipalities (except Memphis) and feeder patterns would not be divided across regions
Current state
Potential future state
Any model must include an element of decentralization to accommodate charter schools, transitioning ASD schools, Innovation Zone & SIG schools
Other commonalities: emphasis on autonomy for schoollevel decision-making, parent and community engagement
Notes: 1. Estimate derived from 11/11 TN state ESEA waiver request. Because 80% of ASD-eligible schools are in Memphis, applied that 80% to the 35 schools ASD will operate state-wide. Source: tn.gov; Interview with Dr. Rod Richmond (MCS)
37
Contents
Executive summary Task of the Administrative Organization & Governance Committee Guiding principles and aspirations Research overview
Description of the options The key differences

Frequently asked questions Worksheet
38
Two options for consideration

Underlying belief ("theory of action")
1 United A well-managed united system enables the highest degree of regional cooperation, faster implementation of proven practices, strategic allocation of resources (programs, people) to where they are needed most, greater consistency, and economies of scale in support systems Even under this option, the system would include decentralized elements, including charter schools and state-managed/authorized ASD schools
Path to autonomy
When schools, or small groups of schools, are working effectively, they know and can respond to the needs of their students and communities better than anyone. As long as performance expectations are met, schools should have the option to operate autonomously, with the oversight of an appointed schoollevel board Because not all schools will follow the path to autonomy, a more traditional governance structure (similar to the United option) will exist in parallel
39
Overview of the 2 options

1 2
United
Central office Regional office School Office of Innovation
Path to autonomy
Central office Office of Innovation
Regional office School n
Distinguishing factors Most similar to current MCS/SCS models Strategy, key decisions driven by the center Regions primarily manage principals "Managed autonomy" for principals
Relative decisionmaking authority:
Primary
Secondary
Distinguishing factors Hybrid of a pure portfolio model with the benefit of a regional structure Schools or groups of schools may apply to district for charter school status Autonomous schools operated by non-profit, possibly public, entities School(s)' contracts contain performance measures Parents and community on appointed school-level boards in autonomous schools Limited
40
What experience and research say about the potential options

Options
1
United
Experience and research

The united option has elements of the traditional, centralized model Many examples of both high-performing and low-performing districts High-performing districts include Gwinnett (GA), Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Montgomery (MD) Among high-performing centralized districts, several common traits: Focused strategy and sustained attention on small number of priorities Stable leadership Equity of opportunity Principals empowered to be agents of change
Path to autonomy
Includes elements of portfolio model, most developed in New Orleans and Denver New Orleans currently ~80% decentralized, narrowed state proficiency gap by more than 50% in past 5 years Additionally, 25+ districts around the country are pursuing this model in partnership with the Center for Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington Relies on contractual arrangement between the district and the school(s), as in charter schools Historical performance of charter schools mixed nationally, but 2011 CREDO study1 found over half of TN charter schools outperformed their non-charter public school peers, while only 26% underperformed
Sources: BCG interviews; New Schools for New Orleans;Center for Reinventing Public Education. 1. Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University, Oct. 2011
41
Detailed view: United option
Structure
Strengths and weaknesses

Strengths Enables central leadership to deploy programs and people equitablymatching them to areas of greatest need District-wide changes more feasible Enables greater consistency for mobile students Enables (though does not guarantee) economies of scale in central functions Simpler, more familiar design Maintains stability, minimizes change Weaknesses Most vulnerable to instability when central leadership changes Most dependent on a high-performing central organization, which many government entities are not May be less attractive to innovators and talented leaders (other than superintendent and top leadership)
Examples Charlotte-Mecklenburg Montgomery County, MD Gwinnett County, GA
Primary
Secondary
Limited
42
Detailed view: Path to autonomy option

Structure
Strengths and weaknesses

Strengths Places decision-making close to students in more schools Clearly defines central office role and relationship with schools Structurally limits bureaucracy Reflects the realities of the increasing variety of school types, including: the ASD, the Innovation Zone, current charter schools Innovation incubator Reflects a model successful outside of education sector Attracts strong school leaders Involves parents and community on school-level boards May be attractive for municipalities desiring autonomy Sets a national standard for a new, innovative model Weaknesses Requires schools and families to navigate a more complex system Could lead to equity/access issues, depending on design Less consistency for mobile students Some duplication at school level May make best-practice sharing across the district more difficult
Secondary Limited
43
Examples Denver Chicago New York City (since 2009)
Primary
The two options allocate decision-making differently

United
Hire, evaluate, renew superintendent District-wide budgeting Construction, major purchases Performance standards and policies Charter authorization Close, open schools Student assignment Student information management systems Property and facilities management1 Transportation1 Safety & security1 Nutrition1 Community engagement Curriculum Formative assessments School and classroom interventions School calendar and schedule Principal hiring, staffing, dismissal Principal management and evaluation Teacher hiring, staffing, evaluation, dismissal Other school staff hiring, staffing, evaluation, dismissal Preparing and executing school-level budget request Day-to-day school operations
Path to autonomy A B
Board and central office
Regional office Principal / school operator

Path A: For schools opting-in to autonomous status Path B: All other schools
44
Notes: 1. In a Path to Autonomy option, ownership for facilities management, transportation, safety & security, and nutrition would sit at the school operator level; however,, school operators would have the option of buying back central district services in these areas.
Resulting district structure

~ Illustrative example of what district could look like in 2013-14 school year~
Shelby County School Board State of TN
Existence of new charter sponsors is key difference between options 1 and 2

Superintendent ASD Supt.
CMO 1
CMO 2
Each region led by a regional director, with 2030 schools per region (depending on # that opt into path to autonomy) Traditional district-operated schools Innovation Zone, alternative school types
2012-02-16 Admin Org supplement-v2.pptx
25 current charters
New charter sponsors generated by current schools converting to charter status individually or in groups of schools
ASD schools will be mix of ASD direct-run and charter operated. Estimated 10-15 schools by 2013-14
District-authorized charter schools ASD schools (direct-run or charter) Direct management Authorization / Coordination
45
Reg. 1
Reg. 2
Reg. 3
Reg. 4
Reg. 5
Reg. 6
Office of innovation
Existing & individual charter schools
New charter sponsor A
New charter sponsor B
New charter sponsor C
New charter sponsor D
ASD directrun
CMO 3
Contents
Executive summary Task of the Administrative Organization & Governance Committee Guiding principles and aspirations Research overview Description of the options
Frequently asked questions

Worksheet
46
Frequently Asked Questions (I)

Q: Can school-level autonomy be a part of either option? A: Yes. The degree of school-level autonomy and what specific decisions are owned by principals is a design choice that can be incorporated in either of these options. However, the Path to Autonomy emphasizes a structural vehicle for autonomy as one option, while the United option would have autonomy granted at district leadership's discretion. Q: Could we have a compromise between option 1 and 2 they seem quite similar? A: The distinctiveness of the Path to Autonomy is that in this option, the district would support and provide structures for schools or groups of schools to pursue autonomous status if they desire it. And in the short-term, choosing this option would mean that the TPC is taking a position in favor of schools having this option. Q: Can a current district school convert to a charter school and preserve its attendance boundaries? A. Unclear. The Administrative Organization & Governance Committee is working on obtaining a legal opinion on this question.
47
Frequently Asked Questions (II)

Q. What is the process for a district school converting to a charter school under current law? A: Conversion of eligible schools to charter status: (A) An eligible public school may convert to a public charter school pursuant to this chapter if the parents of sixty percent (60%) of the children enrolled at the school or sixty percent (60%) of the teachers assigned to the school agree and demonstrate support by signing a petition seeking conversion and the LEA agrees to the conversion. The percentage of parents signing a petition shall be calculated on the basis of one (1) vote for each child enrolled in the school. Parents whose children are enrolled at the school shall have the option to enroll their child in another public school without penalty; (B) An LEA may convert an eligible public school to a public charter school. Parents whose children are enrolled at the school shall have the option to enroll their child in another public school without penalty. An LEA's decision on whether to convert an eligible public school may not be appealed to the state board of education; (C) (i) The conversion must occur at the beginning of an academic school year and shall be subject to compliance with this chapter; and (ii) At the time of conversion to a charter school, any teacher or administrator in the charter school shall be allowed to transfer into vacant positions for which they are certified in other schools in the school system prior to the hiring of new personnel for those positions. Personnel who transfer into vacant positions in other schools in the school system shall suffer no impairment, interruption or diminution of the rights and privileges of a then existing teacher or administrator, and the rights and privileges shall continue without impairment, interruption or diminution with the local board of education. "Rights and privileges," as used in this subdivision (b)(2)(C)(ii), include, but are not limited to, salary, pension or retirement benefits, sick leave accumulation, tenure, seniority and contract rights with the local board of education. The director of schools shall have the option to specifically assign these teachers or administrators to those vacant positions; From Tenn. Code Ann. 49-13-106 Transition Planning Commission
48
Contents
Executive summary Task of the Administrative Organization & Governance Committee Guiding principles and aspirations Research overview Description of the options Frequently asked questions
Worksheet
49
Worksheet: Capturing your thoughts (I)

United
Premium is placed on equal, accessible, highquality education for all students Places management decision-making close to students, so unique needs are met Keeps schools connected to local community
Path to autonomy
Enables effective use of innovation in delivery systems Enables district to make district-wide changes when needed Efficient use of resources; keeps spending on management to minimum needed to be effective Enables district to attract top talent Connects schools that serve the same children over time (feeder patterns) enabling PK-12 coordination and accountability
50
Worksheet: Capturing your thoughts (II)

United
Enables senior management to make informed decisions on principal evaluation and gives them flexibility in compensating, promoting and exiting principals Connects schools with similar challenges, enabling both peer learning and specialized support from the district Allows for some degree of choice Ensures governance structure is responsive to county and creates a sense of community ownership Preserves and enhances local control Preserves stability for teachers and district staff
Path to autonomy
51
The material contained in this presentation is designed for the use of the Transition Planning Commission (TPC) and is based on the work and input of The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and/or TPC members, Committee members, and other stakeholders. BCG has used public and/or confidential data and assumptions provided to BCG by the TPC or other stakeholders which BCG has not independently verified. Changes in the underlying data or operating assumptions will clearly impact the analyses and conclusions. These materials serve only as the focus for discussion and are incomplete without the accompanying oral commentary and may not be relied on as a stand-alone document. Further, third-parties may not, and it is unreasonable for any third-party to, rely on these materials for any purpose whatsoever.
52

TPC Administrative Services Committee Recommendations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TPC Administrative Services Committee Recommendations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transition Planning Commission

Administrative Organization Committee Update

February 23, 2012

Transition Planning Commission

Draft For discussion only

Purpose of this pre-read document

Transition Planning Commission

Draft For discussion only

Research overview Description of the options Frequently asked questions Worksheet

2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx

Transition Planning Commission

Draft For discussion only

Executive summary (I)

Transition Planning Commission

Draft For discussion only

Executive summary (II)

Transition Planning Commission

Draft For discussion only

Executive summary (III)

Transition Planning Commission

Draft For discussion only

Task of the Administrative Organization & Governance Committee

Research overview Description of the options Frequently asked questions Worksheet

2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx

Transition Planning Commission

Draft For discussion only

Administrative Organization and Governance Committee Agreement (1)

Recommendations on a decision or design

Making recommendations on particular staff positions

2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx

Transition Planning Commission

Draft For discussion only

Administrative Organization and Governance Committee Agreement (2)

2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx

Transition Planning Commission

Draft For discussion only

Executive summary Task of the Administrative Organization & Governance Committee

Research overview Description of the options Frequently asked questions Worksheet

2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx

Transition Planning Commission

Draft For discussion only

Reminder: TPC Guiding principles

Transition Planning Commission

Draft For discussion only

Aspirations for administrative structure

2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx

Transition Planning Commission

Draft For discussion only

Community concerns from listening sessions

2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx

Draft For discussion only

Research overview External benchmarking

2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx

Transition Planning Commission

Draft For discussion only

Overview of external benchmarking: sources consulted

2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx

Transition Planning Commission

Draft For discussion only

Key questions regarding administrative organization

1. TPC has limited influence on some of these questions

Draft For discussion only

Two models emerged from research

Providers of public education