You are on page 1of 53

Transition Planning Commission

Administrative Organization Committee Update

February 23, 2012

Transition Planning Commission


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

When considering this document, please focus your attention on slides 38-45, which describe the two

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
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 Transition Planning Commission 1


Draft – For discussion only

Contents

Executive summary
Task of the Administrative Organization & Governance Committee
Guiding principles and aspirations
Research overview

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Description of the options
Frequently asked questions
Worksheet

2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 2


Draft – For discussion only

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

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
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 Transition Planning Commission 3
Draft – For discussion only

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

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
– 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
2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 4
Draft – For discussion only

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

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
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

2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 5


Draft – For discussion only

Contents

Executive summary

Task of the Administrative Organization & Governance Committee


Guiding principles and aspirations
Research overview

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Description of the options
Frequently asked questions
Worksheet

2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 6


Draft – For discussion only
Administrative Organization and Governance Committee
Agreement (1)

Martavius Jones (Co-chair), David Pickler (Co-chair), Joyce Avery, Staley Cates, Mayor Mark Luttrell,
TPC members
Mayor Keith McDonald, Barbara Prescott

Recommendations on a Recommendations on a
Out-of-scope
decision or design process
High-level structure for school Drawing the organizational chart
district that addresses: beyond the first 1-2 layers reporting
• Governance and management to the Superintendent
• Link between the central office
and schools (e.g. sub-districts or Making recommendations on
Recommendations

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
clusters) particular staff positions
• 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

2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 7


Draft – For discussion only
Administrative Organization and Governance Committee
Agreement (2)

Key inputs Milestones Interdependencies

TPC guiding principles Mid to late January: Two-way process


• Report of Assessment Committee Educational Services: School
Current baseline of: student to full Administrative Organization footprint and choice; autonomy and
performance, demographics, committee on student baseline accountability; central academic
geographic presence, and programs • Complete understanding of support function
delivered across schools current state organizational Finance: Funds required/available to
structure of both districts resource administration design
Baseline of current organizational • Complete benchmarking on other Logistics: Design of support functions
structure districts (e.g. technology, transportation,
Work-plan

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
facilities, to support organizational
Benchmarking of best practices at Mid February: Recommendation to structure)
other school districts full TPC on high-level administrative
structure Input to Admin. Organization
Community and stakeholder feedback Assessment: Baseline of student
Late March: Recommendations to full needs
TPC on schools footprint Community Engagement:
Community input and buy-in to
Mid May: Recommendations to full organizational structure
TPC on central office design
Output from Admin. Organization
Educational Services: Academic
priorities
HR/Personnel: Organization structure
to inform estimated staff levels

2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 8


Draft – For discussion only

Contents

Executive summary
Task of the Administrative Organization & Governance Committee

Guiding principles and aspirations


• TPC guiding principles

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
• Administrative Organization Committee aspirations
• Community input
Research overview
Description of the options
Frequently asked questions
Worksheet

2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 9


Draft – For discussion only

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

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
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

2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 10


Draft – For discussion only

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

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
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

2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 11


Draft – For discussion only

Community concerns from listening sessions

Key themes Supporting quotes and comments

Decrease in • Fear of bringing curriculum down instead of bringing it up


academic quality • Concerned about social promotion of failing students
Educational
services

and rigor • What assurances do I have that my child will be able to finish their
academic program

Reduction of • Concern is that special needs children [will be] the first ones left behind
special needs • Concerned about special education and hearing impaired program
programs

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Loss of local • Fears loss of community control
control to serve • Fear losing autonomy to serve specific needs of students
local needs • Hope for sub districts with autonomy to serve specific needs of their areas
Admin

• We moved here for the schools

Bigger is not • Concerned about raw size of combined district


better • Bigger is not better – have seen good districts go bad – keep what’s good
and adopt best practices

Lack of stability • Concerned that teachers could be bumped out of their schools by those
for teachers and with more seniority
HR

support staff • 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
2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 12
Draft – For discussion only

Contents

Executive summary
Task of the Administrative Organization & Governance Committee
Guiding principles and aspirations

Research overview

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
• External benchmarking
Description of the options
Frequently asked questions
Worksheet

2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 13


Draft – For discussion only

Overview of external benchmarking: sources consulted

District leaders Nonprofit leaders BCG experts


Chicago Public Schools Center for Reinventing Hillsborough County Public
Public Education Schools
Denver Public Schools
New Schools for New New York City Department
Gwinnett County Public Orleans of Education
Schools

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Montgomery County Public
Schools

Prince George's County


Public Schools

2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 14


Draft – For discussion only

Key questions regarding administrative organization

Governance Model1 Organization Design Management Approach

• To whom is the school • Should there be • At what level are key


district ultimately sub-districts? How many? staffing, curriculum, and
accountable? • How should the middle budget decision made?
• Will there be a single layer be organized (e.g. • How much autonomy do

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
governance body or geography, grade level, principals have, and what
multiple – if multiple how performance)? can they do to earn more?
are roles divided? • If geography, how should • How do districts manage
• What is the best size for a the lines be drawn? failing schools?
school board? • Who manages principals? • What is the management
• How should school board • How should the district's link between the
districts be drawn and central office be structured? superintendent and
should there be at-large schools?
positions? • How do you manages
schools of choice, charters,
and the ASD within sub-
districts?
1. TPC has limited influence on some of these questions
2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 15
Draft – For discussion only

Two models emerged from research

Providers of public Single (traditional Single plus some System of


education district) charter schools schools

Role of the center Highly autonomous Small center


More centralized, regions primarily focused on
regions primarily results
manage principals

School-level Granted to

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
autonomy Minimal Earned all

Geographic Follow political Keep Radial regions Many schools


organization and community communities to ensure mix autonomous,
boundaries intact; with diversity of performance operate outside
where possible regional structure
Community
Informal: PTA, Elected boards
accountability, principal Appointed boards oversee oversee school(s)
beyond central school(s)
school board

Center-driven Highly decentralized


strategy model portfolio model

Source: BCG analysis


2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 16
Draft – For discussion only
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

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
– 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
2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 17
Draft – For discussion only
The center-driven strategy model poses several potential
challenges, which districts are working to address

Potential challenges Strategies to address


Serving students with • Insist on common, rigorous standards for all students
diverse needs – While differentiating resources and instructional strategies to meet
students where they are

Prioritizing among wide • Clear focus on student achievement


range of educational • Set priorities around drivers of student achievement
goals – In Montgomery County, set ultimate goal on ACT/SAT scores

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
– Identified key drivers, starting in Kindergarten, that contributed to
schools' ability to meet that goal

Allocating funds • 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

Community engagement, • Leverage principals as the key connection point with parents
given lack of elected • Promote shared accountability and engage parents in both the results
bodies at regional or and the strategies going forward
school level • Create multiple formal and informal avenues for parents and
community members to engage
Source: BCG interviews 1/12
2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 18
Draft – For discussion only
Portfolio strategy offers new approach to school district
role and relationship with schools

Traditional School Districts Portfolio School Districts

One centralized
System of schools
school system

Government as
Government as sole

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
authorizer, diverse
operator
operators

Schools as permanent Schools as contingent on


investments 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.
2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 19
Draft – For discussion only

What are the elements of a portfolio strategy?


Paul Hill, of the Center for Reinventing Public Education, has identified seven key elements

Distinctive elements How it works

1 Options and choices for all • Open new schools with outside providers (e.g. charters)
students • School choice for all families
• Equity and access for special education and ELL students

2 School autonomy • All schools control staff selection, pay, assignment and budget
• Openness to new models of teaching and organization

3 Pupil-based funding • All schools receive pupil-based funding


• Schools run by different operators share facilities and resources

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
4 Talent-seeking strategy • Recruitment of new principals and teachers to district
• Performance-based teacher retention and pay

5 Open market for support • Schools free to select support from independent providers (e.g. professional
services development, business and insurance services, facilities management)

6 Performance-based • Common student performance standards for all schools


accountability • Data systems that measure student growth
• Closure of persistently low performing district and charter schools

7 Extensive community • Strong communication plan to convey information (including communications


engagement related to any school closures)
• Feedback loop for parents and community members

Source: "Portfolio School Districts Project," Center for Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington. December 2011.
2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 20
Draft – For discussion only
New Orleans post-Hurricane Katrina is the purest example
of a portfolio strategy

Recovery School District


Orleans Parish School Board
(Louisiana Bd of Elem & Sec Education)

Non- Algiers Non-


RSD KIPP NOPS
network charter network
Sup't x 6 schools Sup't

`
charters schools charters
Directly x 22 schools x 9 schools x 9 schools Directly
Choice
operates 23 operates 5

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
schools x 2 schools schools

FirstLine
x 3 schools Basic facts:
• 2010-11 student enrollment: 39,877
UNO • Students in charter schools: 71%
x 4 schools • Students receiving free/reduced lunch: 84%
• Each independent charter school reports to
ReNEW its own board of directors; network charters
report to board at CMO level
x 2 schools

Source: "The 2011 State of Public Education in New Orleans" Cowen Institute. July 2011.
2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 21
Draft – For discussion only
The portfolio strategy poses several potential challenges,
which New Orleans is working to address

Potential challenges Approaches to address in New Orleans


Holding independently- • Charter schools authorized on 5-year contracts
managed schools • Performance measures enable poor-performing schools to be closed
accountable

Families navigating a • Central district manages enrollment system


multitude of options • 95% of schools open-enrollment (some magnet)
– If more students then spaces, goes to lottery

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
• Considering reserving 50% of lottery for students from geographic
area – schools would opt-in to this policy

Special education • Moving toward having specialized charter schools for severe special
needs
– These schools would offer consulting services to other schools

Transportation • Currently, all schools contract for own transportation

Facilities • Buildings offered to schools as free leases


• Capital projects owned by district
• Schools responsible for ongoing maintenance

2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 22


Draft – For discussion only
Initial data suggest portfolio model is closing the gap
between New Orleans and Louisiana state performance

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Source: Graphic from New Schools for New Orleans
2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 23
Draft – For discussion only
Portfolio model has contributed to reduction in number of
academically unacceptable schools

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Source: Graphics from New Schools for New Orleans; note graphs mis-labeled in source material ("Acceptable" and "Unacceptable" reversed)
2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 24
Draft – For discussion only
Additional model considered: "chancellor model" with
autonomous regions

Providers of public Single (traditional Single plus some System of


education district) charter schools schools

Role of the center Highly autonomous Small center


More centralized, regions primarily focused on
regions primarily results
manage principals

School-level Minimal Earned Granted to

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
autonomy all

Geographic Follow political Keep Radial regions Many schools


organization and community communities to ensure mix autonomous,
boundaries intact; with diversity of performance operate outside
where possible regional structure
Community
Accountability to Informal: PTA, Elected boards
accountability, principal Appointed boards oversee oversee school(s)
school community
beyond central school(s)
school board

"Chancellor model"

Source: BCG analysis


2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 25
Draft – For discussion only
A model with limitations: "Chancellor model"
(sub-districts with significant autonomy)
Role of regions in more
centralized districts important, Districts have experienced challenges in having
but limited sub-districts with significant autonomy
Principal management Several districts we talked to have moved away from
• Evaluation models with heavily staffed, more autonomous regions.
• Support and coaching Some of the rationale:
• Additional personnel costs
Targeted support for struggling • Duplication of work
schools • Misalignment between regions and central office
• Extra assistance in developing

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
improvement plans In 2002, New York City moved away from a system of 32
• Support with staffing, teacher elected community school boards for several reasons
professional development • Community school boards ineffective in many lower-
income areas
Link with central office • Even where community boards were strong, they failed
• To communicate district to produce improvements in schools
strategies, policies to principals • Lack of accountability
• To help principals effectively • Confusion in governance and management between
leverage central office resources 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
2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 26
Draft – For discussion only

Contents

Executive summary
Task of the Administrative Organization & Governance Committee
Guiding principles and aspirations

Research overview

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
• Academic literature
Description of the options
Frequently asked questions
Worksheet

2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 27


Draft – For discussion only
Academic research is mixed on the impact school district
size has on student achievement

One set of studies show district size • "Controlling for characteristics of the student population and other
is negatively associated with environmental factors, including class and school size, district size appears to
educational productivity (e.g. hinder educational achievement." 1
achievement levels, dropout rates, • "Increased district size was found to be significantly associated with lower
grade retention rates, and college academic achievement" 2
enrollment rates)
...however, it is important to • For example...
recognize the limitations of these – Despite showing a negative correlation between size and achievement,
studies 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.

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
– The Trani study is based on school districts in Oregon, where the largest
school district has ~40,000 students.

Other studies show district size has • "As a variable, district size seems quite remote from student learning." 3
little to no direct influence on • "Those who studied district size, concluded its influence on school
student achievement performance was complex and contradictory." 4

The Bill & Melinda Gates • In 2008, after investing $2 billion in making schools smaller and seeing only a
Foundation's experience with small limited impact on achievement, the Gates Foundation shifted its attention and
schools is also instructive resources to teacher effectiveness and other reform strategies
– "One of the things we learned from that experience is that school
structure isn’t enough, the schools need really good teachers in the
classrooms" -Chris Williams, press secretary at the Gates Foundation6

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
2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 28
Draft – For discussion only

Districts of a range of sizes have produced strong results


In 2011, the Center for American Progress Based on the study, 901 school districts with
led a district-by-district evaluation of U.S. enrolments ranging from 265Number of Schools
students to
educational productivity 259,000 achieved the greatest ROI 1

National effort to gauge the efficiency of over 9,000


districts, in more than 45 states Enrolment in '000s
260
250
Study measures the academic achievement a school 240
Broward County, FL – 319 Schools
230
district produces relative to its educational spending, 220
while controlling for factors outside a district's control 210
Palm Beach, FL – 269 Schools
200
such as cost of living, students in poverty, and special 190
education students 180
170

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
160 Wake County, NC – 116 Schools
All districts evaluated were categorized using this scale: 150
140
130
120 Jefferson County, CO – 164 Schools
110
100
90
80 Shelby County, TN – 50 Schools
70
60
50 Warner, SD – 3 Schools
40
30
20
10
0

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
2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 29
Draft – For discussion only
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, non-
negotiable 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

School-level leadership • 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

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
– Example responsibilities: establishing a set of operating procedures, involving teachers
in design of important decisions

Effective teaching • 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

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) McREL’s 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).
2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 30
Draft – For discussion only

Contents

Executive summary
Task of the Administrative Organization & Governance Committee
Guiding principles and aspirations

Research overview

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
• Baseline of current structure at MCS and SCS
Description of the options
Frequently asked questions
Worksheet

2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 31


Draft – For discussion only

Memphis City Schools (I)


Key elements of administrative organization design

• District governed by an elected school board


• Prior to merged board, included 9 elected board members
Governance – 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

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
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:
Organization – 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
2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 32
Draft – For discussion only

Memphis City Schools (II)


Key elements of administrative organization design

• 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:
Division of
– Staffing decisions
roles
– Using Title 1 budget
– Developing school improvement plans
Management

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
• Struggling schools grouped together as "Striving Schools" under NCLB/FTTT
Connecting receive additional support and dedicated leadership attention
similar
schools

• Parent and Community Engagement (PACE): promotes parent advocacy, facilitates


opportunities for parent involvement in schools
Community
• School Site-Based Councils: make recommendations on school policies, lead
engagement
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.
2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 33
Draft – For discussion only

Shelby County Schools (I)


Key elements of administrative organization design

• District governed by an elected school board


• Prior to merged board, included 7 elected board members representing districts
Governance • Board aimed to provide oversight while empowering the district management to
manage

• District managed as whole, no regional model


• 3 grade-level directors (Elementary, Middle and High) support schools with
curriculum, data analysis

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
• Principals report ultimately to the Superintendent; interact with different central staff
depending on the issue at hand
Organization
– 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

2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 34


Draft – For discussion only

Shelby County Schools (II)


Key elements of administrative organization design

• 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
Division of
– Teacher professional learning communities (PLCs)
roles
• Staffing, scheduling decisions left to principals
• Executive staff and 3 grade-level directors evaluate principals
Management

– Each person evaluates 5-7 principals

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
• Principal selection led by committee of executive staff, other principals – with
ultimate decisions made by Superintendent

• Smaller district size and grade-level directors enable collaboration at grade level
Connecting • Monthly meetings bring together all principals
similar
schools

• Each school has an active PTSA that meets monthly with school principals
– Members are frequently in schools
Community
– Principals engage with PTSA leadership on a weekly basis
engagement
• Additionally, principals have close relationships with local elected officials: mayors
frequently visit schools, communicate with principals

2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 35


Draft – For discussion only

Contents

Executive summary
Task of the Administrative Organization & Governance Committee
Guiding principles and aspirations
Research overview

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Description of the options
• The similarities
Frequently asked questions
Worksheet

2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 36


Draft – For discussion only
Common across both options: geographically-based
regions + schools outside of regional structure

Many schools operating outside of


Same geographical regions regional structure

Estimated # of schools
41 112

28
17
25 1

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Current Current 2012 ASD1 Innovation Total #
MCS SCS charter zone of different
charters charters apps and/or school
(in state SIG types
review) turnaround1
• Suggest using the 4 current MCS regions and
dividing the current SCS into 2 regions as a starting Current Potential Potential result
state future state by 2014
point, to maximize stability
• Regions will be of roughly equal enrollment
Any model must include an element of decentralization
• Municipalities (except Memphis) and feeder
to accommodate charter schools, transitioning ASD
patterns would not be divided across regions
schools, Innovation Zone & SIG schools

Other commonalities: emphasis on autonomy for school-


level 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)
2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 37
Draft – For discussion only

Contents

Executive summary
Task of the Administrative Organization & Governance Committee
Guiding principles and aspirations
Research overview

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Description of the options
• The key differences
Frequently asked questions
Worksheet

2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 38


Draft – For discussion only

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

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
2 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 school-
level 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

2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 39


Draft – For discussion only

Overview of the 2 options

1 2
United Path to autonomy

Office of Office of
Central office Central office
Innovation Innovation

Regional Regional
office office

School School
n

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Distinguishing factors Distinguishing factors
• Most similar to current MCS/SCS models • Hybrid of a pure portfolio model with the
• Strategy, key decisions driven by the center benefit of a regional structure
• Regions primarily manage principals • Schools or groups of schools may apply to
• "Managed autonomy" for principals 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
Relative decision-
Primary Secondary Limited school-level boards in autonomous schools
making authority:
2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 40
Draft – For discussion only
What experience and research say about the potential
options

Options Experience and research


1 United 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

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
2 Path to Includes elements of portfolio model, most developed in New Orleans and Denver
autonomy • 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
2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 41
Draft – For discussion only
1

Detailed view: United option

Structure Strengths and weaknesses

Office of Strengths
Central office
Innovation • Enables central leadership to deploy programs and people
equitably—matching them to areas of greatest need
Regional • District-wide changes more feasible
office
• Enables greater consistency for mobile students
• Enables (though does not guarantee) economies of scale in
School central functions

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
• Simpler, more familiar design
• Maintains stability, minimizes change

Weaknesses
• Most vulnerable to instability when central leadership changes
Examples
• Most dependent on a high-performing central organization,
• Charlotte-Mecklenburg
which many government entities are not
• Montgomery County, MD
• May be less attractive to innovators and talented leaders
• Gwinnett County, GA
(other than superintendent and top leadership)

Relative decision-
Primary Secondary Limited
making authority:
2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 42
Draft – For discussion only
2

Detailed view: Path to autonomy option

Structure Strengths and weaknesses

Office of Strengths
Central office
Innovation • Places decision-making close to students in more schools
• Clearly defines central office role and relationship with schools
Regional • Structurally limits bureaucracy
office
• Reflects the realities of the increasing variety of school types,
including: the ASD, the Innovation Zone, current charter schools
School • Innovation incubator
• Reflects a model successful outside of education sector

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
• 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
Examples
• Denver
Weaknesses
• Chicago
• Requires schools and families to navigate a more complex
• New York City (since 2009)
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
Relative decision-
Primary Secondary Limited
making authority:
2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 43
Draft – For discussion only

The two options allocate decision-making differently


United Path to autonomy
A B
Hire, evaluate, renew superintendent
District-wide budgeting
Construction, major purchases
Performance standards and policies Board and
Charter authorization central
Close, open schools office
Student assignment
Student information management systems
Property and facilities management1
Transportation1
Safety & security1

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Nutrition1
Community engagement
Curriculum
Formative assessments
School and classroom interventions
School calendar and schedule
Principal hiring, staffing, dismissal
Principal management and evaluation Regional office
Teacher hiring, staffing, evaluation, dismissal Principal /
Other school staff hiring, staffing, evaluation, dismissal
Preparing and executing school-level budget request school
Day-to-day school operations operator
Path A: Path B:
For schools opting-in to All other
autonomous status schools
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.
2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 44
Draft – For discussion only

Resulting district structure


~ Illustrative example of what district could look like in 2013-14 school year~

Shelby County
State of TN
School Board

Existence of new charter sponsors


is key difference
between options 1 and 2
Superintendent ASD Supt.

CMO 1
CMO 2
CMO 3
Existing & New New New New ASD
Reg. Reg. Reg. Reg. Reg. Reg. Office of

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
individual charter charter charter charter charter direct-
1 2 3 4 5 6 innovation
schools sponsor A sponsor B sponsor C sponsor D run

ASD schools will be


mix of ASD direct-run
and charter operated.
25 current New charter sponsors generated by current Estimated 10-15
Each region led by a regional director, with 20-
charters schools converting to charter status schools by 2013-14
30 schools per region (depending on # that opt
individually or in groups of schools
into path to autonomy)

Traditional district-operated District-authorized charter schools


schools
Innovation Zone, alternative ASD schools (direct-run or Direct management
school types charter) Authorization / Coordination

2012-02-16 Admin Org supplement-v2.pptx Transition Planning Commission 45


Draft – For discussion only

Contents

Executive summary
Task of the Administrative Organization & Governance Committee
Guiding principles and aspirations
Research overview

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Description of the options

Frequently asked questions


Worksheet

2012-02-16 Admin Org supplement-v2.pptx Transition Planning Commission 46


Draft – For discussion only

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.

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
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.

2012-02-16 Admin Org supplement-v2.pptx Transition Planning Commission 47


Draft – For discussion only

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

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
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

2012-02-16 Admin Org supplement-v2.pptx Transition Planning Commission 48


Draft – For discussion only

Contents

Executive summary
Task of the Administrative Organization & Governance Committee
Guiding principles and aspirations
Research overview

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Description of the options
Frequently asked questions

Worksheet

2012-02-16 Admin Org supplement-v2.pptx Transition Planning Commission 49


Draft – For discussion only

Worksheet: Capturing your thoughts (I)

United Path to autonomy


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

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
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
2012-02-16 Admin Org supplement-v2.pptx Transition Planning Commission 50
Draft – For discussion only

Worksheet: Capturing your thoughts (II)

United Path to autonomy


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

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
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

2012-02-16 Admin Org supplement-v2.pptx Transition Planning Commission 51


Draft – For discussion only

Copyright © 2012 by The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
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.
2012-02-23 TPC Admin Org Pre-read v6.pptx Transition Planning Commission 52

Related Interests