Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Compact toolkit: working draft December 22, 2010 Working draft CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY Any use of this material without specific permission of McKinsey.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Compact toolkit: working draft December 22, 2010 Working draft CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY Any use of this material without specific permission of McKinsey."— Presentation transcript:

1 Compact toolkit: working draft December 22, 2010 Working draft CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY Any use of this material without specific permission of McKinsey & Company is strictly prohibited

2 McKinsey & Company | 1 “The goal of the compact initiative is to improve collaboration and innovation between charter and districts schools to provide all students in a city with a portfolio of highly effective education options, accelerating 80 percent college readiness in the city.” -- Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

3 McKinsey & Company | 2 Purpose of this toolkit Purpose ▪ Provide background on the Compact, guidance on the process, and ready to use “tools” for cities that are considering engaging as “Round 2” Compact cities ▪ Leverage the experiences and tools used by cities that completed a district-charter Compact in December 2010 How cities should use the toolkit ▪ View this document as a “toolkit” with potentially helpful guidance—these are not templates or required approaches ▪ Utilize and customize the tools and exercises that are most relevant to your city’s Compact and context

4 McKinsey & Company | 3 Table of contents SectionsWhat’s included Overview of the compact initiative 4 Development I: involving and engaging the right participants ▪ Designating compact leads ▪ Deciding who to engage in the process ▪ Sample approaches for engaging the charter community Development II: developing a meaningful compact ▪ Developing an approach to content development ▪ Templates and tools 20 ▪ What should be included in a work plan ▪ Sample work plans 43 Ensuring follow-through ▪ Planning ahead for implementation ▪ Accountability process overview 49 What makes a good compact ▪ Criteria and example collaboration ideas13 Development III: work planning 26 ▪ Compact overview ▪ Context, rationale, and objectives ▪ Planning ahead for risk 47Mitigating risk Page Appendix ▪ Catalogue of collaboration ideas51 8

5 McKinsey & Company | 4 The compact initiative evolved from a desire by cities to accelerate district-charter collaboration Origin The idea for the compact initiative originated at a gathering of superintendents and charter leaders in February The group recognized the need to improve collaboration and innovation between charter and district schools in order to provide all students in their cities with a portfolio of highly effective education options. Goals The group asked for Gates Foundation support in fundamentally shifting the district-charter dynamic in their cities. They asked for help with individual city efforts to ▪ Transform the systems and incentive structures that foster unhealthy competition between districts and charter schools in each city ▪ Tackle the most intractable challenges to collaboration, including access to facilities, equity in funding, and serving special needs students The initiative As a first step in driving long- term change, the group asked for ▪ Support for cities willing to make specific commitments to take district-charter collaboration to a deeper level ▪ Structures for holding cities accountable for those commitments ▪ Strong examples of collaboration for other cities across the country

6 McKinsey & Company | 5 The compact initiative – what is it? ▪ Generate high-potential collaboration ideas to address pressing challenges, including resource sharing: – Access to facilities – Equitable funding – Serving special education, ELL, and high need students ▪ Support leaders who are committed to the hard task of affecting change ▪ Refine charters’ role in the solution: charters have as much to offer to collaboration efforts as districts Objective Support provided ▪ A draft compact with language for general commitments to provide a starting place for each district’s compact ▪ A national convening of participating cities to discuss common challenges and share best practices ▪ A national compact launch press event including all cities with signed compacts ▪ A small grant to participating cities to support compact commitments Expectations of participants ▪ Develop a compact supported and signed by both district and charter leaders ▪ Share learnings and collaboration ideas with other participating cities ▪ Take responsibility for following through on city-specific commitments (the Center on Reinventing Public Education will track cities’ progress, developing measures of success and reporting progress)

7 McKinsey & Company | 6 The compact initiative – who should participate? Cities participating in the compact initiative are ▪ Committed to being national leaders in tackling the most intractable roadblocks to district-charter collaboration ▪ Committed to pushing district-charter collaboration to a deeper level within the city ▪ Willing to take on the risk of political repercussions and local resistance to change ▪ Asking to be held accountable for following through on city-specific collaboration commitments

8 McKinsey & Company | 7 The prevailing district-charter dynamic is often characterized by mistrust and missed opportunities The relationship between school districts and charter schools varies city to city, but in many cases is characterized by competition for resources and a “zero-sum” mindset: rather than competing to outdo each other in providing excellent educational opportunities, schools are struggling to control ideas, funding, or facilities. “Video surfaced last week of City Council woman Gale Brewer saying she'd "strangle" families that chose to leave a local public school for a public charter school …local elected officials around the nation regularly take equally anti-school-reform stances.” 1 -- Kevin Chavous (chairman, Black Alliance for Educational Opportunity), Howard Fuller (former Milwaukee superintendent ) "Charter movement people have gotten a little skeptical about the big urge to cooperate more with districts and to share what we do with districts…I think the best quote I’ve ever heard about this is attributed to Yvonne Chan, the founder of the first conversion charter school in California, the Vaughn 21st-Century School, and she said, “I’m always asked, ‘When are we going to see ripples from your innovation?’” and she said, “‘You can’t see ripples if the lake is frozen.” -- Nelson Smith, president and CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools SOURCE: Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools, New York Post 1 Howard Fuller and Kevin Chavous, “’Strangling’ NYC Kids’ Futures”, New York Post, 10/27/10; Nelson Smith, Charter Schools Chief Advocate, District Administration, 9/2009

9 McKinsey & Company | 8 Moreover, recent history demonstrates that this dynamic is difficult to change Political risk With entrenched vocal advocates on either side of the dynamic, it can be challenging to find common ground, particularly for elected and public officials Competing stakeholder interests Improvement often requires that trade-offs be made (and balanced) among a number of stakeholders increasing the challenge of capturing the necessary of buy-in breadth Union opposition With multiple issues and negotiations often being addressed in parallel, it can be difficult to create buy-in on specific district-charter collaboration The need for legislative change Many desired changes are outside of the control of local leaders and require significant effort Tension and lack of trust Skepticism and low confidence on both sides based on a history of “bad blood” can undermine even promising collaborations Barriers to increased collaboration

10 McKinsey & Company | 9 Charters are an increasingly important part of public education in cities across the country Enrollment in charter schools in the U.S. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education Common Core of Data (National Center for Education Statistics); NAPCS Student enrollment in Cohort 1 cities % of all public schools 0.6%3.5%4.9% % Total TraditionalCharter Nashville80,08098%2% New York999,31597%3% Hartford22,01896%4% Rochester36,38993%7% Denver77,25590%10% Los Angeles678,27790%10% Baltimore82,86690%10% Minneapolis44,40378%22% New Orleans36,81639%61%

11 McKinsey & Company | 10 ▪ A joint district-charter initiative created a template for how teachers can develop and refine detailed year-long plans. The templates, and other materials are now available more broadly. –Washington D.C. ▪ 2 charter and 1 district middle school share a common enrollment zone, and every student living within the zone is guaranteed a spot at one of the schools. –Denver ▪ A campus with a co-located district and charter school are piloting an active collaboration partnership. Students share lunch and recess and joint staff meetings will be held throughout the year. –Los Angeles Examples of collaboration from across the country SOURCE: Promising Educational Practices, Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools Education Week, “Regular Public Schools Start to Mimic Charters”, Nov. 8, 2010 Education Week November 18, 2010 “But both supporters and skeptics... agree that so far the [district-charter] cooperative efforts are not widespread nor are most of them very deep”

12 McKinsey & Company | 11 Why participate? What Cohort 1 cities said Putting a balanced set of commitments on a single compact was a huge part of what allowed us to get Board approval on issues that all had been dealt with independently before. Together, these ideas will have a huge impact on all of our kids. – Charter Leader Being able to codify and expand collaboration that is already happening is important, particularly in light of leadership transitions. Now we can build on what we have and pursue the even bolder ideas we have in the Compact. – District Leader ▪ The public nature of the compact and process helped build trust and accountability ▪ The opportunity to be a national leader in a high- profile initiative motivated participants to push for bolder changes ▪ It provided a way to get buy-in on issues typically dealt with independently ▪ It opened up new areas of collaboration with and among the charter community ▪ It allowed us to articulate a unified call for change The compact initiative was useful because…

13 McKinsey & Company | 12 Table of contents SectionsWhat’s included Overview of the compact initiative Development I: involving and engaging the right participants ▪ Designating compact leads ▪ Deciding who to engage in the process ▪ Sample approaches for engaging the charter community Development II: developing a meaningful compact ▪ Developing an approach to content development ▪ Templates and tools ▪ What should be included in a work plan ▪ Sample work plans Ensuring follow-through ▪ Planning ahead for implementation ▪ Accountability process overview What makes a good compact ▪ Criteria and example collaboration ideas Development III: work planning ▪ Compact overview ▪ Context, rationale, and objectives ▪ Planning ahead for risk Mitigating risk Appendix ▪ Catalogue of collaboration ideas Page 51

14 McKinsey & Company | 13 A good compact articulates a shared district-charter vision and outlines a set of detailed commitments that will help achieve it An articulation of the joint commitment to ensure that all children have access to high- quality public schools Specific commitments on how the vision will be achieved Vision for the future A set of broad commitments common to all compact cities A set of city- specific commitments to collaboration

15 McKinsey & Company | 14 An example of how one city articulated its vision in the compact We, the undersigned, believe that ▪ High performing schools rely on, cultivate, develop, and support highly effective school leaders and teaching professionals ▪ High performing schools are student-centered, pursuing innovation and actively sharing demonstrated best practices to support their dissemination and implementation at scale ▪ High performing schools empower parents by offering meaningful choices for students and developing creative ways to engage families in the design and success of their school. ▪ High performing schools collaborate as partners in the county-wide effort to provide an excellent education for all students and, as partners, work to share best practices between classrooms, schools, and leaders Therefore, collaboratively undertaking to build a system of high performing public schools throughout the county, we, the undersigned, pledge the following on behalf of the present and future students of Nashville-Davidson County… -- Nashville-Davidson County Collaboration Compact

16 McKinsey & Company | 15 Broad commitments common to all compact cities City-specific commitments Commitments common to all cities include: Compacts include a set of general commitments that all cities are expected to incorporate, in addition to city-specific commitments ▪ Serve all students in the city equitably in all schools, including special needs, ELL, and high-risk populations ▪ Ensure transparency regarding student mobility and achievement ▪ Work with districts to locate schools in high-need areas ▪ Actively share best practices with district ▪ Embrace responsibility for ensuring that all students graduate from high school ready for college, work, and life ▪ Support high-performing schools, immediately address low- performing schools ▪ Foster a cooperative and collaborative relationship between district and charter schools Joint commitments ▪ Make district economies of scale available to charter schools ▪ Advocate for equitable per-pupil funding ▪ Promote replication of most promising school models ▪ Protect autonomy of charter schools ▪ Actively share best practices with all charter schools District commitments Charter commitments 2 sets of commitments 1 2

17 McKinsey & Company | 16 City-specific commitments should be bold, specific, and actionable ▪ Has the potential to significantly improve student outcomes and access to a portfolio of high quality education options. It also addressed the most pressing issues in our city ▪ Action to be taken can be clearly understood by all stakeholders and constituents ▪ Actions have are separated into district, charter and joint commitments ▪ Next steps and measures of success are explicitly stated or easily understood in order to ensure appropriate follow- through ▪ Will it make a significant difference to students outcomes? ▪ Does it clearly describe an action to be taken and what we are accountable for? Bold Specific and actionable CriteriaKey questionDescription

18 McKinsey & Company | 17 Example compact commitments II ▪ “Common approach to... admission lotteries... including common forms and... parent information system... track outcomes of students winning and losing... and follow-up on lessons learned... ” –Hartford ▪ “Serve all students; measured by % of special education enrolled – consider creation of specialized schools / schools within a school to serve targeted high-need populations” –New Orleans Equity and Access Facilities ▪ “Develop and implement an equitable and transparent process for facilities assignment that considers parent demand, and school performance, as well as building quality where possible.” –Denver ▪ “Continuing to co-locate and locate charter schools in underutilized district buildings and where a charter school would provide a high-quality option for parents” –New York

19 McKinsey & Company | 18 Example compact commitments II ▪ “[Create a] workgroup to develop criteria and definitions for ‘non- performing’ schools and use that information for authorization, renewal, and closure decisions” –Baltimore ▪ “Establish a common high performing school indicator that provides a clear, credible, and intelligible measure, includes multiple variables, weights student growth highly... used to improve communication and parent-friendly information regarding all public schools” –Nashville ▪ “Ensure equitable access to Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes (TRANS) in a manner that is cost neutral to the district.” –Los Angeles ▪ “Offer expanded access on an opt-in basis to services such as food service, transportation, and procurement.” –Rochester ▪ “Commit to ensuring equitable resources for charter schools… includ[ing]... per pupil revenue,... an equitable share of... Title funds,... bond funds,... and materials purchased with federal funds, and grants... ” –Denver School-level accountability Resources (non-facilities)

20 McKinsey & Company | 19 Table of contents SectionsWhat’s included Overview of the compact initiative Development I: involving and engaging the right participants ▪ Designating compact leads ▪ Deciding who to engage in the process ▪ Sample approaches for engaging the charter community Development II: developing a meaningful compact ▪ Developing an approach to content development ▪ Templates and tools ▪ What should be included in a work plan ▪ Sample work plans Ensuring follow-through ▪ Planning ahead for implementation ▪ Accountability process overview What makes a good compact ▪ Criteria and example collaboration ideas Development III: work planning ▪ Compact overview ▪ Context, rationale, and objectives ▪ Planning ahead for risk Mitigating risk Appendix ▪ Catalogue of collaboration ideas Page 51

21 McKinsey & Company | 20 Approach to involving and engaging the right participants ▪ Designate a district “lead” and a charter “lead” ▪ Decide who to involve ▪ Develop an approach to engaging the charter community ▪ Decide on the right roles for participants and stakeholders

22 McKinsey & Company | 21 Designate a district “lead” and a charter “lead” ▪ Be co-accountable for compact effort deliverables and timeline ▪ Build district buy-in on the compact and ensure that the organization supports the final agreement ▪ Represent the district’s voice in workshops and meetings with charters ▪ Co-lead district-charter workshops ▪ Drive agenda, content, and outcomes of workshops ▪ Take responsibility for communication with city stakeholders as appropriate District lead: main responsibilities ▪ Be co-accountable for compact effort deliverables and timeline ▪ Coordinate communication with charter community ▪ Build buy-in from key charter stakeholders and ensure that the charter community supports the final agreement ▪ Represent the charter community’s voice in workshops and meetings with the district ▪ Co-lead district-charter workshops ▪ Drive agenda, content, and outcomes of workshops ▪ Take responsibility for communication with external stakeholders as appropriate Charter lead: main responsibilities

23 McKinsey & Company | 22 Decide who to involve District Charter ▪ Superintendent, local school board ▪ Senior leadership key to organization-wide support ExamplesWho to engage ▪ Project lead on special teacher effectiveness initiative ▪ Relevant subject-matter experts ▪ Executive Director of Innovation and Charter Schools, Chief of Facilities ▪ Personnel who will lead follow- through on compact commitments ▪ Representatives from CMOs, stand-alone schools, conversion schools ▪ Representation from the charter community ▪ Representatives from charter advocacy organizations / foundations ▪ Relevant subject-matter experts ▪ President of state charter association ▪ Leaders of existing charter organizations Additional stakeholders ▪ Other players who could help develop or carry out charter commitments ▪ Union president, Mayor, local foundations, local education organizations

24 McKinsey & Company | 23 Select charter representatives Example: New Orleans has a large and highly organized charter community. Two representatives from the charter community volunteered to draft the first compact with the district lead. Develop an approach to engaging the charter community Invite everyone to the table Example: Rochester, NY has only seven charter schools; when the district lead convened the first compact meeting, she invited the head of each charter school or charter network. OR Create new communication channels Example: In Memphis, charter schools had no tradition of group meetings or formal communication. The first step in the compact process for the charter lead was to call a meeting of all charter schools to discuss common goals. Leverage existing communication channels Example: In Los Angeles, a charter convening organization holds monthly meetings of charter school representatives and sends out weekly s. Updates on the compact process were shared both at meetings and through the weekly s. Options for engaging charter leadersOptions for managing communication and input OR

25 McKinsey & Company | 24 Decide on the right roles for participants and stakeholders: example Letter of support Working meeting participant President of state charter association Mayor Stakeholder District facilities head Charter “lead” District “lead” President of local teachers union Principals of stand- alone charters Superintendent Local foundation CEOs of large CMOs Feedback on draft compact Role in implementation Content development Signatory Template to be completed by city

26 McKinsey & Company | 25 Table of contents SectionsWhat’s included Overview of the compact initiative Development I: involving and engaging the right participants ▪ Designating compact leads ▪ Deciding who to engage in the process ▪ Sample approaches for engaging the charter community Development II: developing a meaningful compact ▪ Developing an approach to content development ▪ Templates and tools ▪ What should be included in a work plan ▪ Sample work plans Ensuring follow-through ▪ Planning ahead for implementation ▪ Accountability process overview What makes a good compact ▪ Criteria and example collaboration ideas Development III: work planning ▪ Compact overview ▪ Context, rationale, and objectives ▪ Planning ahead for risk Mitigating risk Appendix ▪ Catalogue of collaboration ideas 8 Page Page 51

27 McKinsey & Company | 26 Prioritizing the right ideas Developing the right content Generating collaboration ideas Developing the right level of detail Potential approach ▪ Decide on a set of goals that the compact will help you to achieve ▪ Catalogue examples of existing collaboration ▪ Consider examples of collaboration from other cities ▪ Brainstorm new ideas for collaboration ▪ Consider the feasibility and the potential for impact of each idea ▪ Decide which ideas should be a priority: what mix of impact and feasibility makes sense for your city? ▪ Develop each priority idea into a commitment to a specific initiative ▪ Consider examples of collaboration from other cities for ideas on how to make commitments bolder and more specific ▪ Solicit feedback on commitments from local and national content area experts

28 McKinsey & Company | 27 Customizing the content development process: New Orleans example Why the approach made sense for New Orleans ▪ History of significant collaboration between district and charters, in a city that is ~70% charter school ▪ Strong understanding of and alignment on the priority issues to address in compact ▪ High levels of trust in “working team” and district-charter accountability ▪ Highly organized charter community with existing communication channels Approach: 2-person working group writes early draft compact, then solicits input from broader community ▪ 1 district and 1 charter representative (a deputy superintendent and a representative from New Schools for New Orleans) held an early discussion on priority ideas and created a draft compact to refine with other participants ▪ Draft compact circulated to charters via for feedback ▪ Compact revised based on feedback, and circulated back to charters to solicit support

29 McKinsey & Company | 28 Customizing the content development process: Los Angeles example Why the approach made sense for Los Angeles ▪ History of hostility and mistrust between district and charters ▪ Significant, but limited, examples of existing district-charter collaboration ▪ Large charter community including several major CMOs ▪ Charter community highly organized through state charter association; compact leads could leverage association's existing channels of communication with charters ▪ High level of buy-in and alignment on content/language in order to advocate for board approval Approach: A working group follows a methodical process of formal workshops and exercises before drafting a compact to share more broadly ▪ Third party interviews district and charter leaders to capture ideas, set expectations, and address initial skepticism ▪ 11-person workshop: District and charter leads make prepared remarks to “set a new tone” for the relationship; participants brainstorm and prioritize list of collaboration ideas ▪ District and charter leads create first draft compact ▪ Joint district-charter working teams develop priority ideas in more detail (e.g., actions, impact, next steps) ▪ 18-person workshop: Expanded working group discusses and refines priority ideas; external stakeholders participate in meeting ▪ District and charter lead create revise draft compact and share with broader stakeholders for input before soliciting final signatures

30 McKinsey & Company | 29 Soliciting feedback from experts Relevant context to provide to experts ▪ History of district-charter dynamics ▪ District governance model ▪ Size and history of the charter community (and how they are organized) ▪ Compact participants (and who drafted the document) ▪ Level of buy-in to date ▪ Next steps for the compact and implementation ▪ Specific barriers and challenges Example areas for feedback ▪ Is the compact bold enough to make a meaningful impact? ▪ What would make our commitments most specific and actionable? ▪ Are the commitments and benefits appropriately balanced? ▪ Are there key topic areas missing? ▪ How should we approach gaining additional buy-in (e.g. from charters, school board, stakeholders)? ▪ Are we taking on more than we can feasibly implement? The value of outside expert feedback ▪ Many cities found it useful to engage a third party expert to review the compact and push on areas where the compact could become more impactful ▪ The best expert feedback sessions were proactively driven by the city to ensure that the experts understood the unique context and areas of inquiry for the city

31 McKinsey & Company | 30 Tools and resources for content development (1/3) Tool/resource Idea brainstorming exercise Description ▪ Group/workshop exercise to build a list (or build on an existing list) of collaboration ideas a Lists of existing collaborations ▪ Example collaborative practices drawn from cities across the country ▪ Collection of promising cooperative practices from the Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools b When it might be useful ▪ To efficiently generate ideas and capture input from a group of people ▪ As an early exercise to help build cooperation/trust among district and charter participants ▪ To seed initial discussions and idea generation exercises ▪ To provide sample ideas and language for what specific commitments might look like Generating collaboration ideas

32 McKinsey & Company | 31 Tools and resources for content development (2/3) Tool/resource Prioritization exercise c Impact / feasibility estimate tool d Description ▪ Group/workshop exercise to quickly and visually capture aligned/differing perspectives on priorities ▪ Individual voting template for rating ideas based on feasibility and impact ▪ A chart showing how to interpret results from the rating exercise ▪ A summary reporting format When it might be useful ▪ To create a basis for a more prioritization discussion ▪ To provide group transparency of where there is already alignment and where there are differences of opinion ▪ To start a conversation about the criteria for prioritization ▪ To help prioritize ideas based on explicit criteria ▪ After aligning on definitions for “impact” and “feasibility” ▪ Capture additional transparency of differences in perspective along the two dimensions and across participants Prioritizing the right ideas

33 McKinsey & Company | 32 Tools and resources for content development (3/3) Tool/resource Idea development team worksheet e Idea development template f Description ▪ A template for keeping track of teams responsible for further idea development ▪ A template to guide deeper discussion of each idea and surface areas for further discussion When it might be useful ▪ To record the specific people assigned to further develop each idea, and share role assignment with the group ▪ As a tool to report out on small- group discussions of the ideas to be included in the compact Developing the right level of detail

34 McKinsey & Company | 33 Exercise: ▪ Participants spend minutes circulating throughout the room – Ensure that there are at least 1 district and charter person at each poster – Signal time to “rotate” to another set of ideas every 5-10 minutes ▪ At each poster participants add to and refine ideas: – Add new ideas in the given categories using the red markers provided – Suggest refinements with blue Post-It Notes – Ask questions related to the ideas using yellow Post-It Notes ▪ After each poster has been visited, an individual at each will review and share ideas with full group Refinements Questions Idea list Idea 1 Idea 2 Additional idea Idea list Idea 1 Idea 2 Additional idea Idea generation: brainstorming exercise SAMPLE TOOL a Preparation: ▪ Compile a list of ideas that could be included in the compact (through interviews, informal conversations, or brainstorming by district and charter leads) ▪ Categorize ideas, and write ideas in each category on a flip chart (or print on posters); and post around a room ▪ Gather red markers, blue post-its and yellow post-its

35 McKinsey & Company | 34 Examples of district-charter collaborationCollection of promising cooperative practices Idea generation: list of collaboration ideas SAMPLE TOOL b “The Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools conducted a nationwide search to find the most promising and innovative cooperative practices between charter and traditional public schools. We sought cooperative practices with strong collaboration, originality, inventiveness and the ability to replicate.” Link to website: conference/call-for-practices Detailed list: See appendix of this document ▪ List of implemented and in-process district- charter collaboration ideas from across the country ▪ Ideas grouped by category (e.g., facilities, human capital) ▪ Ideas characterized by degree of collaboration (e.g., minimal, moderate, deep) ▪ Captured from existing research and interviews with district and charter leaders

36 McKinsey & Company | Ask each participant to post 5 green stickers on flip charts to indicate which ideas he/she is most excited about exploring further – Each person should use all five stickers on five different ideas – Ask participants to choose ideas that excite them, even if they may be hard to implement 2. Identify the 5-10 ideas with greatest momentum (most green stickers) 3. Ask each participant to individually rank each of the high-momentum ideas – Each participant rates each idea should be separately on “impact” and “feasibility”: ▫ Impact: Has the potential to measurably benefit students in the city (in terms of access or effectiveness of their education options) ▫ Feasibility: Meaningful changes can be made within 6 months of signing the compact 4. Aggregate participants’ rankings to use as a basis for further discussion – This can be done during a break from the working session, or in preparation for later meetings / discussions Idea list Idea 1 Idea 2 Additional idea Idea list Idea 1 Idea 2 Additional idea Prioritizing ideas: prioritization exercise SAMPLE TOOL c Preparation: ▪ Write the complete list of collaboration ideas brainstormed to date on flip charts, and post them on the wall ▪ Provide each participant with five green stickers

37 McKinsey & Company | 36 Idea Potential impact on students (circle one) Feasibility (circle one) A. Idea High Med Low B. Idea High Med Low C. High Med Low D. High Med Low E. High Med Low F. High Med Low G. High Med Low H. High Med Low I. High Med Low J. High Med Low Prioritizing ideas: participant worksheet SAMPLE TOOL d

38 McKinsey & Company | 37 Prioritizing: summary scatter plot of all ideas 1 Idea 1 2 Idea 2 Idea 3 3 Idea 4 4 Idea 5 5 Idea 6 6 Idea 7 7 Idea 8 8 Idea 9 9 Idea Idea Idea Medium Average assessment per idea Low High MediumLow Feasibility High Impact d SAMPLE TOOL

39 McKinsey & Company | 38 Do not pursue Feasibility Impact Do not pursue For discussion Do not pursue For discussion Pursue For discussion Pursue Low Medium High LowMediumHigh Prioritizing: Evaluation of feasibility/impact estimates SAMPLE TOOL d

40 McKinsey & Company | 39 Collaboration idea Idea team Next stepsDeadline 1. ▪ District lead: ▪ Charter lead: ▪ Functional experts: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Idea team is responsible for next steps in developing the idea content for the compact Developing the right detail: planning chart SAMPLE TOOL e Some cities found it easier to translate this page into a simple excel spreadsheet

41 McKinsey & Company | 40 Potential benefits ▪ Potential actions ▪ Potential challenges ▪ Potential benefits ▪ Potential actions ▪ Potential challenges ▪ Idea #9 Develop and implement a shared principal training pipeline to recruit, train and support a new generation of principals that are prepared to lead new and existing schools successfully in order to effectively eliminate the achievement gap. Benefit to students (how to measure and target impact) Students would benefit by having school principals that are trained in turning around failing schools, an/or providing opportunities to students via the development of new schools with proven academic and operational models. Considerations for district Considerations for Charters Idea development: idea template (1/2) SAMPLE TOOL f

42 McKinsey & Company | 41 Idea #9 (continued) Next Steps (including content development and implementation) ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ResponsibilityActivityTiming ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Key Success Factors Potential risks Idea development: idea template (2/2) SAMPLE TOOL f

43 McKinsey & Company | 42 Table of contents SectionsWhat’s included Overview of the compact initiative Development I: involving and engaging the right participants ▪ Designating compact leads ▪ Deciding who to engage in the process ▪ Sample approaches for engaging the charter community Development II: developing a meaningful compact ▪ Developing an approach to content development ▪ Templates and tools ▪ What should be included in a work plan ▪ Sample work plans Ensuring follow-through ▪ Planning ahead for implementation ▪ Accountability process overview What makes a good compact ▪ Criteria and example collaboration ideas Development III: work planning ▪ Compact overview ▪ Context, rationale, and objectives ▪ Planning ahead for risk Mitigating risk Appendix ▪ Catalogue of collaboration ideas Page 51

44 McKinsey & Company | 43 What to include in your work plan ▪ Dates for district-charter workshops/ meetings ▪ Work charter-specific convenings and/or communications into the plan ▪ Timing for securing buy-in and ultimately, signatures/letters of support Workshop/ meeting schedule Charter convenings/ communication Description ▪ Deadlines for different iterations of the compact (e.g., first, final draft) ▪ Make explicit when each phase of the content development process will occur Content development phases Guidance ▪ Put on calendar to create urgency and “deadlines” ▪ Decide on meeting objectives and participants upfront ▪ Leverage existing meetings and communications where possible ▪ Create timing that complements the overall work plan ▪ Typically 2-4 weeks to finalize buy-in at the end of the process ▪ Helpful to build into the entire process as well ▪ Most cities had the same 1-2 people creating and revising drafts throughout the process ▪ Customize phases and timing to city context Compact draft deadlines Securing buy-in Example

45 McKinsey & Company | 44 Example work plan from cohort 1 city Workshop 1 Oct 7 Workshop 2 Nov 5 Compact signing Nov 15-Dec 2 Activities Finalize compact draft Nov 6-19 ▪ Develop a comprehensive list of collaboration ideas ▪ Prioritize ideas to develop in further detail ▪ Identify next steps and owners ▪ Prioritized set of collaborative ideas to pursue further ▪ Next steps and owners for each Deliverables ▪ Further develop priority ideas including – Working through details and challenges – Engaging subject matter experts – Identifying goals and progress measures ▪ Create first draft of compact document ▪ Further developed priority ideas for discussion at Workshop 2 ▪ Review, discuss, and refine proposed Compact collaboration ideas ▪ Identify any additional ideas for potential inclusion ▪ Identify other local supporters and assign owners to pursue ▪ Agree upon process for compact finalization ▪ Agreed-upon in-depth ideas for collaboration (including key elements, metrics, etc.) for which language can be developed ▪ Plan for engaging other supporters ▪ Agreed-upon process for compact finalization ▪ Sign final Compact ▪ Gather letters of support from other local supporters ▪ (partial overlap with finalization of compact draft) ▪ Signed Compact, Letters of Support, and next steps for collaboration ▪ Board approval ▪ Circulate drafts ▪ Finalize language ▪ Specific compact language around proposed areas of collaboration ▪ Collaboration metrics of success identified Interim work Oct 9-Nov 4 ▪ Interviews of several key participants/stakeholders ▪ Communicate the compact process and approach ▪ Initial list of potential ideas for compact ▪ Initial list of incoming hopes and concerns ▪ Draft timeline and approach Pre-work Sep 1-Oct 6 EXAMPLE #1

46 McKinsey & Company | 45 Example work plan from cohort 1 city ▪ Hold meeting with charter, district, and stakeholder (and union) leaders to align on compact participation and sign the “Broad commitments common to all compact cities” [see page 15] Aug 13 ▪ Hold individual meetings and calls with key stakeholders to develop city-specific ideas Aug 14- Nov 1 ▪ Communicate the compact and build initial buy-in for city participation Pre-Aug 13 EXAMPLE #2 ▪ District and charter “leads” jointly create first draft of compact ▪ Distribute draft to compact participants to review and capture input Nov 1-5 ▪ Participants review draft compact and capture input (e.g., questions, elements believed to be most important, elements missing, concerns,) Nov 8-12 ▪ Hold workshop to review and discuss draft compact, agree on changes, and align on path forward Nov 16 ▪ Conference call to review revised draft and agree on changes/next steps Nov 22 ▪ Thanksgiving ▪ Compact draft revised and redistributed for input ▪ Individual meetings with participants to review latest draft and secure support Nov ▪ Compact draft revised and redistributed for input Nov ▪ Conference call to finalize draft and agree on changes/next steps ▪ Final changes/updates made Dec 1 ▪ Collect final signaturesDec 2 ▪ Hold meeting with union leader to review draft compact and secure letter of support ▪ Finalize compact Dec 3 Note: This city had a small number of charters, allowing all to more easily and manageably participate in every meeting/call. This also allowed the city incorporate the buy-in process along the way, and have a quick turnaround at process conclusion

47 McKinsey & Company | 46 Table of contents SectionsWhat’s included Overview of the compact initiative Development I: involving and engaging the right participants ▪ Designating compact leads ▪ Deciding who to engage in the process ▪ Sample approaches for engaging the charter community Development II: developing a meaningful compact ▪ Developing an approach to content development ▪ Templates and tools ▪ What should be included in a work plan ▪ Sample work plans Ensuring follow-through ▪ Planning ahead for implementation ▪ Accountability process overview What makes a good compact ▪ Criteria and example collaboration ideas Development III: work planning ▪ Compact overview ▪ Context, rationale, and objectives ▪ Planning ahead for risk Mitigating risk Appendix ▪ Catalogue of collaboration ideas 8 Page

48 McKinsey & Company | 47 Mitigating risks ▪ Ensure that the right leaders are “at the table” during the process to help facilitate the political process (e.g., Mayor’s staff, senior leadership in the district) ▪ Make honest assessment of longer timing and process steps required, and build into the process (some cities built in over 4 weeks just for buy-in process/bureaucracy) ▪ Discuss and incorporate known overlaps with union input/priorities ▪ Be deliberate about when and how to engage. Some cities decided to engage the union at compact process kick-off, others felt it better to engage after creating fuller alignment among stakeholders ▪ Secure a meaningful number/representation of charters to move forward with the compact, while ensuring that all parties are heard and included in the discussion ▪ Create opportunities for those that are not fully aligned to continue to participate in the process if not signing (this should be an ongoing discussion and living document) Bureaucracy and political delays Union engagement Lack of alignment within charter community Potential riskPotential mitigation strategies ▪ Develop compact content and process with an eye toward a “board-ready” compact (e.g., language, content) ▪ Create coordinated board outreach plan to advocate and build buy-in ▪ Build in commitments/ideas that can feasibly be pursued without board approval Need for board approval

49 McKinsey & Company | 48 Table of contents SectionsWhat’s included Overview of the compact initiative Development I: involving and engaging the right participants ▪ Designating compact leads ▪ Deciding who to engage in the process ▪ Sample approaches for engaging the charter community Development II: developing a meaningful compact ▪ Developing an approach to content development ▪ Templates and tools ▪ What should be included in a work plan ▪ Sample work plans Ensuring follow-through ▪ Planning ahead for implementation ▪ Accountability process overview What makes a good compact ▪ Criteria and example collaboration ideas Development III: work planning ▪ Compact overview ▪ Context, rationale, and objectives ▪ Planning ahead for risk Mitigating risk Appendix ▪ Catalogue of collaboration ideas Page 51

50 McKinsey & Company | 49 Implementation planning ideas captured from Cohort 1 Topics ▪ Hold annual meeting specifically to consider revisions and updates that will ensure the collaboration remains relevant, timely, and effective ▪ Invite leaders that did not sign to participate in meetings to challenge thinking and foster future buy-in Maintaining a living document ▪ Designate a 2 person district-charter team to lead each commitment ▪ Hire a full-time project manager ▪ Create a charter school liaison to the district to help organize the charter community around this and other efforts Capacity and resources ▪ Create metrics to monitor progress on individual commitments ▪ Report publicly on implementation progress every six months ▪ Create detailed work plans with clear action item owners Measurement and accountability ▪ Look for quick wins in implementation to build momentum and positive press about what the compact can accomplish ▪ Coordinate communication with and in the media to minimize “gotcha” tactics ▪ Pursue additional signatures and letters to broaden support Risk mitigation

51 McKinsey & Company | 50 Table of contents SectionsWhat’s included Overview of the compact initiative Development I: involving and engaging the right participants ▪ Designating compact leads ▪ Deciding who to engage in the process ▪ Sample approaches for engaging the charter community Development II: developing a meaningful compact ▪ Developing an approach to content development ▪ Templates and tools ▪ What should be included in a work plan ▪ Sample work plans Ensuring follow-through ▪ Planning ahead for implementation ▪ Accountability process overview What makes a good compact ▪ Criteria and example collaboration ideas Development III: work planning ▪ Compact overview ▪ Context, rationale, and objectives ▪ Planning ahead for risk Mitigating risk Appendix ▪ Catalogue of collaboration ideas Page 51

52 McKinsey & Company | 51 Sources ▪ Interviews with district and charter leaders ▪ National Best Cooperative Practices Between Charter and Traditional Public Schools Conference, Sept 27-28, 2010, Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools Levels of collaboration ▪ Minimal – Partners cooperate and make small concessions to enable each other ▪ Moderate – Partners selectively share resources and expertise to address mutual needs ▪ Deep – Partners deeply collaborate to address mutual needs Notes and definitions Examples of district-charter collaboration: overview 1) * = considering, but have not yet implemented 2) Collaboration: an arrangement that is jointly undertaken or involves an exchange of benefits 3) District/charter action: an arrangement where one partner primarily offers benefits to the other partner; these may be components of a comprehensive collaboration plan

53 McKinsey & Company | 52 Minimal ▪... Moderate ▪ Collaboration – District created the Charter School Advisory Council, where top leaders from the district and charter schools meet monthly. Council results include joint professional development for district and charter school teachers, charter leaders supporting the district in reviewing new charter applications, and charter schools having free access to the district’s alternative out-of-school suspension program (Hillsborough County) ▪ Collaboration* – District may implement a process to expedite renewal for high-performing charters, in exchange for charters sharing codified best practices with the district (various)... Deep ▪... Governance policy

54 McKinsey & Company | 53 Minimal ▪ District action – By law, if charters share a building where new space becomes available, they must refuse it before it can be offered to a district school (D.C.) ▪ District action – By law, school districts are required to invite charter schools to discuss their capital construction needs before the district submits a bond request for facilities funding; however, districts are not required to include the charter schools’ request as part of the district’s request. (Colorado) Moderate ▪ Collaboration – District provides the charter school a cost-effective lease and the charter provides the district with its innovative programming for teacher professional development and arts curriculum (San Antonio) ▪ District action – District pays for the necessary capital renovations on shared facilities to ensure that buildings have the necessary life safety renovations and are ADA compliant (Chicago) ▪ District action – By law, school districts must make its unused facilities available to locally approved charter schools without lease or rental charges, although maintenance and other costs can be charged (Georgia). NOTE: This applies only to locally approved charter schools. ▪ District action* – District may advocate to rationalize building safety codes for traditional public schools to reduce district facilities costs; cost savings may fund additional facilities for charters (various) Resources -- facilities

55 McKinsey & Company | 54 Deep ▪ District action – Charters receive facilities (including many new buildings) effectively free, paying the district only 1.75% of per-pupil funding for students served; this fee supports operating services, supplies, and professional services that the district provides to charter schools. Charters are responsible for general maintenance and operating costs (New Orleans) ▪ District action – Districts offer charters free facilities and all maintenance services (like traditional public schools) (Hartford) ▪ Collaboration – District offers facilities to charter schools that have been approved through an RFP process (Minneapolis, Chicago, although in 2010, for the first time, the district did not offer buildings) ▪ Collaboration – A Synergy charter school and a district school who share a facility have deliberately moved beyond co-location to co-operatively running the building. The schools share and jointly staff lunch and recess and hold joint staff meetings (Los Angeles) ▪ Collaboration* – District may reach out to charters for best practices in efficient facilities development; cost savings may fund additional facilities for charters (various) ▪ District action* – District may establish a facilities oversight board to identify available facilities, match availability to school growth projections, and communicate facilities decisions to both district and charters (various) ▪ Collaboration* – District may encourage new district and charter school applicants that could share facilities to submit applications to public school choice process together (Los Angeles) Resources – facilities (cont.)

56 McKinsey & Company | 55 Minimal ▪ District action – District planned a “sustainability retreat” with top leaders of new district and charter school support organizations to understand and address areas of similar concern, including external funding, level of school support, and community support (New York) Moderate ▪ District action – District provides food services, transportation and other support services to charter schools (New Orleans, Hartford) ▪ Collaboration – Louisiana Charter Schools Organization offers its legal staff to both the district and charters (New Orleans) ▪ District action – District provides a “circulator” bus that has multiple pick up and drop off locations for both district and charter school students (Denver) ▪ District action – District provides charter schools with access to low-interest rate loans to support general operating costs, delayed receivables, or growth capital needs (Lodi, CA) Deep ▪ District action – District allows charters to bid for food services at competitive rates from other providers (Denver) ▪ District action* – District is considering policy and practice changes to enable per-pupil budgeting so that charters receive equal per-pupil funding (various) Resources – non-facilities

57 McKinsey & Company | 56 Minimal ▪ Collaboration* – Districts and charters may develop a marketing campaign to present a unified charter-district “face” to community (e.g., jointly authored communications about city education options) (various) Moderate ▪ Collaboration – District superintendent commissioned a district-charter working group to address tensions over special education policy which required charters to take on low-performing, district special education staff. Working group made changes to district staffing procedures to give charters greater input into special education staffing decisions for their schools (Denver) ▪ Collaboration – A charter school became an autonomous high-needs special education site, receiving district funding for special education students but retaining flexibility of special education programming (Denver) ▪ Collaboration* – District and charter may jointly commission a study to examine outcomes for special education students in charters vs. district schools (various) Deep ▪ Collaboration – District and charters (with support from Get Smart Schools) are developing a data system and web interface to unify enrollment across district and charter schools. New system will be accompanied by a marketing campaign to inform parents about all school choices in the city (Denver) ▪ Collaboration – New Schools for New Orleans and the district jointly identify low-performing district schools and authorize charters to take over these schools (typically retaining all students and no staff) (New Orleans) ▪ Collaboration – District “turned around” a low-performing school by inviting two charters and a traditional public school to take on all students from the closed school. Charters maintained right to selecting students by lottery but agreed to meet district needs by coordinating lottery with other schools in the boundary (Denver) Resources – access

58 McKinsey & Company | 57 Minimal ▪ District action – District superintendent uses scores to identify high-performing charters and invites those organizations to high-profile and key decision-making events in the district (Baltimore, New Orleans, New York City) Moderate ▪ Collaboration – All charter data is available through the district student data system (Baltimore, Denver) ▪ Collaboration – Friends of Choice in Urban Schools, New Leaders for New Schools, and the Achievement Network (with the help of the state superintendent’s office) hosted a Data Summit, bringing together charter and district school leadership teams to review state test results (D.C.) ▪ Charter action – Arizona Charter School Association created student growth percentiles to measure student progress and worked in partnership with the Arizona Department of Education to post online every district and charter school’s median growth percentile for grades four through eight (Arizona) ▪ District action* – District may share sophisticated data analysis tools (currently only available to district schools) with charter schools (various) ▪ Collaboration* – District schools began utilizing data practice vendor in several district schools after seeing charters benefit from improved data practices. District is considering regularly convening staff from all district and charter schools engaged with the vendor to share insights and best practices (various) ▪ Charter action* – High-performing charter may share its real-time, IT-enabled formative assessment tools with the district (various) Data infrastructure, access, and use

59 McKinsey & Company | 58 Deep ▪ Collaboration – New Schools for New Orleans performs school reviews for district and charter schools and advises district and charter community on which schools should be closed or expanded (New Orleans) ▪ Collaboration – District and charters (including Achievement First) advocated for legislative changes and wrote an MOU to count charter scores toward district performance (Hartford) ▪ Charter action – Achievement First shared best practices in data use with district; district replicated one element, “Data Days” (professional development days held several times per year to adjust instruction based on interim student achievement data) (New Haven) ▪ Collaboration – Edward W. Brook Charter School and the Clarence Edwards Middle School formed a one-year partnership to develop formative math assessments, share best practices in analyzing data from the assessments, and target student support based on the data analysis (Boston) ▪ Collaboration* – District and charters may co-advocate to include charter school scores in district performance calculations, e.g., blended accountability for district and charter schools sharing a campus (various) Data infrastructure, access, and use (cont.)

60 McKinsey & Company | 59 Minimal ▪ Collaboration – District organized school visits between charter schools and “new schools” (district schools with greater autonomy) to collaboratively address challenges at individual schools (Baltimore) Moderate ▪ Collaboration – District and charters, in partnership with New Schools for New Orleans, worked together to bring New Teacher Project and other human capital providers to the city (New Orleans) ▪ Collaboration – District and charter schools developed the Project for School Innovation (PSI), to share best practices among educators, publish learnings, and conduct trainings (Boston) ▪ Collaboration* – District and charters may establish professional learning communities for best-practice sharing, especially in challenging content areas (e.g., math institutes) (various) Deep ▪ Collaboration – District, Get Smart Schools (charter organization) and Teach For America co-developed principal training program (now in its third year), which aims to train and eventually license principals per year for Denver charter and performance schools (district schools with greater autonomy) (Denver) ▪ Charter action – Achievement First and district co-wrote i3 proposal for Achievement First to train 5 principals per year for New Haven Schools; principals in training would split time between residency in high-performing Achievement First Schools and district placements (New Haven) Human capital solutions

61 McKinsey & Company | 60 Deep (cont.) ▪ Collaboration – Leading CMOs (Uncommon Schools, KIPP, and Achievement First ) collaborated with NYC Chancellor Joel Klein and Hunter College to found and develop curriculum for Teacher U, a practice-based teacher preparation program for future district and charter teachers (up to 500 teachers per year) (New York) ▪ Collaboration – District launched “RSD Pathways” to pilot aligned evaluation, professional development and career pathways for teachers and school leaders; district and several CMOs (Firstline Schools, KIPP, ReNEW) are applying for funding to expand the program to all schools in the city (New Orleans) ▪ Charter action – Reading specialists at a Rhode Island charter school are serving as instructional coaches, providing in-class training to their public school colleagues as part of a program to help boost reading skills among their students (Rhode Island) ▪ Collaboration – Stoughton and Foxborough School Districts and Foxborough Regional Charter School exchanged professional development days; Stoughton hosted sessions on data-driven analyses and in exchange Foxborough Charter provided trainings on curriculum mapping (Stoughton and Foxborough, MA) ▪ Charter action – Green Dot leadership academy trains several principals for district schools each year (LA) ▪ Collaboration – District and Charters are jointly creating the Rio Grande Valley Center for Teaching and Leading Excellence to develop a permanent and sustainable capacity to recruit, select, onboard, evaluate, reward, support, train, and retain teachers and school leaders for both LEAs, including multiple pathways to teacher and school leadership. (IDEA and PSJA ISD, TX) ▪ Collaboration* – District and several CMOs are considering partnering to develop scalable value-added model for teacher evaluation and compensation; district will lend databases, while CMOs will build and test value-added model (various) Human capital solutions (cont.)

62 McKinsey & Company | 61 Minimal ▪ Charter action – Boston Renaissance Charter Public School students and staff, in partnership with the Wang Center’s Arts Can Teach Program, piloted an 8-week lunchtime musical/cultural experience called “Eats and Beats” that eventually spread to several Boston school districts (Boston) ▪ District action – District expanded charter authorization guidelines to permit charters with non-traditional instructional models (e.g., no textbooks) (LA) ▪ District action – District simulated charter innovation model by authorizing an increased number of new schools (district schools with significant autonomy) (Baltimore) Moderate ▪ Collaboration – The Oakland Inquiry Project engages ten Oakland school leaders from district schools and charter schools in a sustained, facilitated inquiry project for one year; this project must focus on initiating or perfecting an Early College model of providing access to college courses for all students. The project concludes with a published "Field Guide" of recommendations, tips, and strategies for use by other schools and school leaders seeking to implement similar innovative practices (Oakland) ▪ Collaboration – A program that assists students with graduating on time was initiated at a charter school and expanded to several district schools through shared staff (a college transition counselor and a community outreach coordinator), resources and internships (Indianapolis) Innovative school models, tools, and supports

63 McKinsey & Company | 62 Moderate ▪ Collaboration – An elementary charter school that emphasizes second-language acquisition by immersing learners in Spanish worked with the school district to develop a language maintenance program in the district middle school. The district is able to gain out-of-district revenue for the program (near St. Paul, Minnesota) ▪ Collaboration – Inspired by the Harlem Children’s Zone, district and charter school principals in the same neighborhood meet regularly and work together with community partners (D.C.) ▪ Collaboration – Charter school parents, the charter school state association, and the state education department are working together to establish one statewide virtual school (Indiana) ▪ Charter action – Charter school is distributing its award-winning mentorship program to a district high school (Santa Fe) ▪ Collaboration* – District and charters may hold joint sessions for district and charter teachers in schools that focus on the same next-generation areas (e.g., STEM) to share learnings and collaboratively develop winning school models (various) Deep ▪ Collaboration* – District and charters create joint working committee to identify the most effective online learning options by content area, and cross-enroll district and charter students in those courses (various) Innovative school models, tools, and supports (cont.)


Download ppt "Compact toolkit: working draft December 22, 2010 Working draft CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY Any use of this material without specific permission of McKinsey."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google