Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

September 11, 2009 Everyman State: Using Delivery to Achieve Ambitious Graduation Goals American Diploma Project Network Annual Leadership Team Meeting.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "September 11, 2009 Everyman State: Using Delivery to Achieve Ambitious Graduation Goals American Diploma Project Network Annual Leadership Team Meeting."— Presentation transcript:

1 September 11, 2009 Everyman State: Using Delivery to Achieve Ambitious Graduation Goals American Diploma Project Network Annual Leadership Team Meeting Plenary session CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY Any use of this material without specific permission of McKinsey & Company is strictly prohibited

2 1 Contents ▪ Introduction: Delivery, ADP and Everyman State ▪ Setting out: Establishing goals, trajectories and routines ▪ Falling behind: How do we get back on track? ▪ Success: Impact of increased CCR graduates ▪ Conclusion: What can EDI do for you?

3 2 What is “Deliverology?” “Deliverology” (n.) is a systematic process for driving progress and delivering results. What are you trying to do? How are you planning to do it? At any given moment, how will you know whether you are on track? If not, what are you going to do about it? It will enable you to answer rigorously the following questions:

4 3 Like all of you, Everyman State has established ambitious college- and career-ready graduation requirements in line with the ADP mission ▪In order to meet the demands of today’s workforce, all students must graduate with at least: –4 years of Math, including Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II –4 years of rigorous English –3 years of Science –3 years of Social Studies ▪Graduating college- and career-ready will be a default curriculum ▪In order to receive course credit, students must pass both the course and the end-of- course assessment NEW college- and career-ready requirements Previous requirements All students must graduate with at least these courses: ▪2 years of Math, including Algebra I ▪3 years of English ▪2 years of Science

5 4 Everyman State has established ambitious goals for implementation

6 5 Like many of you, Everyman State faces demographic and performance challenges in meeting graduation goals Graduation rates, Class of 2008 Percent of each group by graduation type 9 th grade entry cohort demographics, Class of 2008 Percent of all students LEPSPED 11 Low- income URMTotal Number of students 99,2002,60010,80032,60032,900 LEP SPED Low- income URM All students Cohort graduates CCR graduates 69,800 51,600 1, ,300 2,500 18,700 10,400 18,200 9,700 College- and career-ready graduation rate Cohort graduation rate

7 6 In order to reach its goals, Everyman State will need 91,900 on-time graduates in 2017, and 81,700 college- and career-ready grads SOURCE: Team analysis Required graduates 81,700 91,900 Class of 2017 goal 80% CCR grads 90% cohort grads Projected 9th grade cohort 102,100

8 7 21,000 7,000 3,200 10,400 2, Low-income Special Education Limited English Proficiency In order to halve the achievement gap in CCR graduation rates by 2017, Everyman State must focus on struggling populations SOURCE: Team analysis 23,1009,700 Under- represented minorities Student subgroup Ratio to non- disadvantaged student rate 2017 goal ratio (50% less gap) Class of 2017 grads required Class of 2008 CCR grads College- and career-ready graduation rates

9 8 First new cohort To stay on track to its 2017 goal, Everyman State plots the graduation targets it must reach each year on its trajectory SOURCE: Team analysis Number of graduates Graduating class Cohort goal = 91,900 grads % graduate CCR today 70% graduate on time today CCR goal = 81,700 grads

10 9 At its current performance levels, Everyman State will fall 32,200 graduates short of its CCR goal SOURCE: Team analysis Gap to goal = 32,200 First new cohort Number of graduates Graduating class Baseline = 49,500 CCR goal = 81,700 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 85,000

11 10 Currently planned interventions only yield 8,700 additional CCR graduates SOURCE: Team analysis Impact on leading indicator Intervention # of additional CCR grads Early warning indicators (reduced cumulative dropouts by focusing on 9 th and 10 th grades) ▪ 45% decrease in cumulative dropout rate 3,900 Saturday Academy (Saturday school for students at risk of passing course but failing EOC test) ▪ 10% increase in pass rates for courses taken during academic year 4,800 All existing interventions 8,700

12 11 First new cohort With these planned initiatives, Everyman State will fall 23,500 graduates short of the necessary trajectory to reach the CCR goal SOURCE: Team analysis Number of graduates Graduating class Gap to goal = 23,500 Projected CCR with planned interventions = 58,200 Baseline = 49,500 CCR goal = 81,700 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 85,000

13 12 Everyman State uses five types of benchmarking to learn about other ways to build a trajectory that will reach its goal Against history Within your systems Against other similar systems Against organizations with similar processes Against the world

14 13 To close the gap, Everyman State looked at its system and realized that several demographic groups were struggling to pass core CCR courses SOURCE: Team analysis ▪ URM, LI, LEP, SPED Math EOC tests ▪ Not part of a subgroup Algebra IGeometryAlgebra II Fourth-Year Math CCR graduates Course passage rates Percent

15 14 Everyman State looked at other states and learned that using ELT to target support at these students could add 3,600 CCR graduates in Overall impact on system; rates based on 50% improvement in select Math, 15% in English, 33% of failing students; affects year passage rates only. SOURCE: Team analysis ▪ URM, LI, LEP, SPED With extended learning time, Everyman State gains 3,600 additional CCR graduates by Math EOC tests Algebra IGeometryAlgebra II Fourth-Year Math CCR graduates Course passage rates Percent ▪ Not part of a subgroup 75-80

16 15 Through similar analyses, Everyman State identified several other interventions to close the gap to its goal Intervention Number of additional CCR grads Impact on leading indicator Extended time for bottom 33% of schools (ELT) ▪ 50% increase in math year course rates ▪ 15% increase in English year course rates 3,600 Literacy remediation ▪ 75% decrease in failures of English year courses 5,100 90% summer school enrollment ▪ 90% enrollment in summer CCR courses when year course is failed 5,100 9th grade readiness (Alg 1 and writing) ▪ Increase in Alg 1 and Eng 1 pass rates by 9th grade class of 2017 – 40% year course, 25% summer (SPED) – 30% year course, 15% summer (URM, LI, LEP) – 10% year course, 5% summer (All others) 700 Early college high school ▪ 20% decrease in dropout rate ▪ 30% decrease in off-track/continuing rate 6,000 Mid-career math recruitment (50% lowest-performing schools) ▪ 15% improvement in math year course pass rates 100 Total 24,500 8th grade planning (guidance counselor initiative) ▪ 100% on-track 9th grade enrollment by 2013 ▪ 20% decrease in off-track/continuing rate 3,900 SOURCE: Team analysis

17 16 First new cohort With these new interventions, Everyman State has a series of plans that it believes will get carry it to its college- and career-ready goal for Impact masked by students’ failing English sequence 2Includes impact of other initiatives Number of graduates Graduating class SOURCE: Team analysis 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 85,000 Planned interventions = 8,700 Baseline = 49,500 CCR goal = 81,700

18 17

19 18 Trajectories are not necessarily straight lines, because the timing and size of your interventions may vary Low trajectory (policy has a lagged impact) High trajectory (policy has an immediate impact) Sample policy trajectories Long-term strategic goal Historical performance Starting point Performance Time

20 19 Everyman State also develops a schedule of regular routines to monitor progress Definition ▪ Monthly note to the CSSO with a briefing on delivery progress Monthly notes SEA stocktakes ▪ Quarterly meeting between CSSO and relevant SEA leaders to regularly assess each planned intervention District stocktakes ▪ Quarterly meeting between CSSO and leaders of major districts to regularly assess progress Delivery reports ▪ Semi-annual assessment of the status of all of the system’s targets and underlying interventions

21 20 Rationale summary Quality of planning, implementation and performance management Recent performance against trajectory and milestones Highly problematic – requires urgent and decisive action Red Mixed – aspect(s) require substantial attention, some good Yellow/Green Good – requires refinement and systematic implementation Green Problematic – requires substantial attention, some aspects need urgent attention Yellow/Red Everyman State uses this assessment framework to routinely assess progress on each intervention Likelihood of delivery Capacity to drive progress Judgement Degree of challenge Stage of delivery Rating L / M / H / VH 1 / 2 / 3 / 4

22 21 Everyman State uses a summary table of assessments to track progress on all of its interventions Program Rank Likelihood of delivery Stage of delivery Capacity to drive progress Quality of planning, implementation and performance mgmt. Degree of challenge Assessment criteriaOverall judgment Early Warning Indicators Saturday Academy 8 th -grade planning 90% Summer school enrollment 9 th -grade readiness Early college high schoolMid-career math recruitingExtended timeLiteracy remediation

23 22 Discussion 1: Goals, trajectories and routines Q1. How useful would this process of trajectory setting and creating routines be in reaching your college- and career- readiness goals?  Have you conducted a similar process of goal-setting and trajectory-setting? Why or why not?  Do you have access to the necessary information to draw useful conclusions from this type of exercise? Q2. How challenging would trajectory building and establishing similar routines be in your state? ▪ What would be the biggest barriers to building a trajectory and establishing routines in your system? ▪ Do you have the capacity or capability in your system to perform the required data analysis? To oversee progress? ▪ Do system leaders have the time and ability to prioritize these activities given competing demands?

24 23 Goals, trajectories and routines: Time to vote! How useful would this process of trajectory setting and creating routines be in reaching your college- and career-readiness goals? A.“Not useful at all" B.“Possibly useful – need to know more” C.“Probably useful – want to know more” D.“Definitely useful”

25 24 Goals, trajectories and routines: Time to vote! How challenging would trajectory building and establishing similar routines be in your state? A.“Impossible” B.“Very challenging” C.“Somewhat challenging” D.“Not challenging at all”

26 25 Contents ▪ Introduction: Delivery, ADP and Everyman State ▪ Setting out: Establishing goals, trajectories and routines ▪ Falling behind: How do we get back on track? ▪ Success: Impact of increased CCR graduates ▪ Conclusion: What can EDI do for you?

27 26 First new cohort When the Class of 2013 graduates, Everyman State realizes it is already off-track to its CCR goal for 2017 Number of graduates Graduating class Current trajectory Required trajectory SOURCE: Team analysis Gap to goal = 6,100 Projected off-track = 75,600 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 85,000 CCR goal = 81,700 Actual 2013 graduates

28 27 Mid-career math recruitment Medium1 Successful as expected in early stages of recruitment Early college high school Medium1 Well-received and some decrease in dropouts; need to benchmark rigor of programs 90% summer school enrollment Low2 Results as expected; some improvements needed in enforcement/performance mgmt. 8 th -grade planning High2 Extremely effective where implemented; some need for additional counselor capacity 9 th -grade readiness Med-Low2 Significant gains in student achievement in all classes by 9 th grade measures Saturday Academy Med-Low3 Enrollment used as enrichment; need to communicated intended beneficiaries Extended time Med-High1 Insufficient teacher capacity; impact is only 25% increase in math scores Early Warning Indicators High3 Dropout rate has not changed at all; needs further attention Literacy remediation High1 Results as expected in early stages of implementation, especially in English II scores A review of progress shows mixed results amongst the interventions Program Planning, perform. mgmt. Degree of challenge Rank Stage of delivery Capacity to drive progress Justification Likelihood of delivery Assessment criteriaOverall judgment

29 28 The reduced impact of Saturday Academies is due to miscommunication of the program as an enrichment service Quality of planning, implementation and performance management Recent performance against trajectory and milestones Highly problematic – requires urgent and decisive action Red Mixed – aspect(s) require substantial attention, some good Yellow/Green Good – requires refinement and systematic implementation Green Problematic – requires substantial attention, some aspects need urgent attention Yellow/Red Capacity to drive progress Judgement Degree of challenge Rating Likelihood of delivery ▪ Program effective; only requires accurate targeting of students ▪ At all levels, ineffective communication has led to targeting wrong students for Saturday program. Program used as enrichment, not intervention ▪ Educator and administrative capacity is sufficient ▪ Need to develop and emphasize process for identifying at-risk students who should be placed in this program Med- Low Rationale summary Stage of delivery ▪ Advanced; in place for over 3 years 3 Solution: Communication plan and diagnostic testing

30 29 The reduced impact of extended time is due to absence of excellent educator capacity to teach in ELT schools Quality of planning, implementation and performance management Recent performance against trajectory and milestones Highly problematic – requires urgent and decisive action Red Mixed – aspect(s) require substantial attention, some good Yellow/Green Good – requires refinement and systematic implementation Green Problematic – requires substantial attention, some aspects need urgent attention Yellow/Red Capacity to drive progress Judgement Degree of challenge Rating Likelihood of delivery ▪ Extended time costly and success depends on quality of teachers ▪ Structure and funding exist ▪ Need for improved performance management to identify lower-than- projected gains earlier in cohort progression through CCR sequences ▪ Quality of teaching, certification and tenure of teachers at ELT schools are below peer schools, leading to reduced student gains Med- High Rationale summary Stage of delivery ▪ Beginning; implemented beginning in Solution: Recruit better teachers and incentivize to teach at ELT schools

31 30 The reason for the consistently high dropout rate is unclear and merits further investigation Quality of planning, implementation and performance management Recent performance against trajectory and milestones Highly problematic – requires urgent and decisive action Red Mixed – aspect(s) require substantial attention, some good Yellow/Green Good – requires refinement and systematic implementation Green Problematic – requires substantial attention, some aspects need urgent attention Yellow/Red Capacity to drive progress Judgement Degree of challenge Rating Likelihood of delivery ▪ Cause of dropout rate is unknown ▪ Dropout rate of traditionally at-risk students has actually declined but overall dropout rate has not ▪ Performance management system offers no explanation ▪ Educator capacity to identify Early Warning indicators and support at-risk students is above levels of peer systems High Rationale summary Stage of delivery ▪ Advanced; in place for over 3 years 3 Solution: ?

32 31 Q3. How well-equipped is your state to resolve significant problems where you cannot identify the root of the issue?  Do you have processes or systems in place for problem- solving?  What information do you need? Which people are critical to resolving the problem?  Do you face challenges in gathering and analyzing information?  Do you face challenges in prioritizing difficult issues over competing demands? Q4. What is the biggest barrier to problem-solving? Discussion 2: Problem-solving and resolution

33 32 Problem-solving and resolution: Time to vote! How well-equipped is your state to resolve such problems? A.“Not at all – it would be impossible” B.“Poorly equipped” C.“Somewhat equipped” D.“Well-equipped”

34 33 Problem-solving and resolution: Time to vote! What is the biggest barrier to problem-solving? A.“Lack of capacity” B.“Limited access to and/or poor quality of data” C.“Competing priorities” D.“Inadequate systems and processes”

35 34

36 35 For maximum impact, a problem-solving process should include these key steps: Conducting a priority review Identify problem Initial analysis of data and evidence Identify delivery chain and structure issues Generate initial hypotheses Generate interview questions Field work Analyze evidence and structure solutions Agree on key actions

37 36 After conducting a priority review, Everyman State finds existing programs do not address “new dropouts,” who need support for CCR classes SOURCE: Team analysis Interviews and front-line visits support data that “new dropouts” need support for CCR courses Surveys identify that primary reason for dropping out is lack of academic support ▪ Students with traditional drop-out profiles (disinterested, unprepared) have decreased 25% since the Early Warning indicator intervention ▪ Students dropping out today do not match profiles of traditional dropouts (better prepared for high school, find classes interesting) ▪ “New” dropouts report feeling sense of failure and desire for increased support ▪ Most “new” dropouts tend to leave after passing 1-2 years of CCR curriculum and struggling with later courses Primary reason for dropout Percent of dropouts Can’t get academic support Classes aren’t interesting Family/personal reasons

38 37 Everyman State decides to pilot three academic support initiatives it believes will prevent “new dropouts” in large districts SOURCE: Team analysis Class of 2013 Pilot program Leading indicators impacted Expected decrease in cumulative dropouts Percent Graduation coaches ▪ 11 th -12 th grade dropouts, URM 20 Skills preparatory camp ▪ 9-10th grade dropouts, URM 15 AVID ▪ All dropouts, URM25 AVID Lane District Skills preparatory camp Allegheny District Graduation coaches Montgomery District Dropout rate Percent of entry cohort Class of % -21% %

39 38 The following year ( ), Everyman State rolls out the highly successful AVID program system-wide Dropout rate, Class of 2013 Percent of cohort Decrease in dropout rate, Percent In the subsequent school year ( ) Everyman State uses, “leader districts” to improve “laggard districts,” further increasing the impact of the new dropout intervention: ▪ Teacher, principal and superintendent exchanges ▪ Best practice workshops ▪ Identification of key implementation barriers ▪ Peer sharing “Leader districts” “Laggard districts” Individual district performance SOURCE: Team analysis

40 39 With its new dropout intervention, Everyman State truly believes it can get back on track to its 2017 goal Graduating class Number of graduates Projected off-track =79, CCR goal = 81,700 Projected with interventions = 82,600 First new cohort SOURCE: Team analysis 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 85,000

41 40 Contents ▪ Introduction: Delivery, ADP and Everyman State ▪ Setting out: Establishing goals, trajectories and routines ▪ Falling behind: How do we get back on track? ▪ Success: Impact of increased CCR graduates ▪ Conclusion: What can EDI do for you?

42 41 First new cohort By 2017, with continued monitoring and problem solving, Everyman State reaches its goal, and manages to halve the achievement gap SOURCE: Team analysis Graduating class Cohort grads = 92,000 grads Number of graduates 2008 CCR grads = 82,600

43 42 The increase in Cohort and CCR graduation rates in Everyman State increases college enrollment and completion SOURCE: Strong American Schools, Diploma to Nowhere, 2008; BLS 2008; Census 2007; Chicago Public Schools 2008; Indiana Core 40; Role of Community Colleges in Florida’s Economy, 2004 (see Appendix for further details) Total 73,800 12,300 Increased CCR graduates (enrollment of increased CCR grads) Increased graduates (enrollment of additional cohort grads) 9,500 Baseline (enrollment from baseline grads) 52,000 College enrollment by Class of 2017 Number of students Total 50,400 Increased CCR graduates (completion by increased CCR grads) 3,800 Increased graduates (completion by additional cohort grads) 33,300 Baseline (completion by baseline grads) 13,300 6-year degree attainment by Class of 2017 Number of graduates This increase in college graduates in the workforce increases GDP by $7 bn over the lifetime of the Class of 2017 high school graduates

44 43 After 5 years of relentlessly striving and problem-solving toward its high-school graduation goals, Everyman State added 43,000 high school graduates, 17,000 college graduates and significantly boosted its economy. Imagine in your state. what this would look like

45 44 Contents ▪ Introduction: Delivery, ADP and Everyman State ▪ Setting out: Establishing goals, trajectories and routines ▪ Falling behind: How do we get back on track? ▪ Success: Impact of increased CCR graduates ▪ Conclusion: What can EDI do for you?

46 45 The U.S. Education Delivery Institute (USEDI) will build the “capacity to deliver” of state-level K-12 and higher education systems ▪ The mission of the USEDI is to develop the capacity of K-12 and higher education leaders to define and deliver on their key education priorities, so that intent at the system level translates to impact at the student level MissionMajor functions ▪ Provide direct support to participating systems to build their capacity to deliver ▪ Connect participating systems in a collaborative learning network ▪ Build a knowledge base of best practices and “case stories” of delivery Partners ▪ The Education Trust ▪ Achieve Support ▪ Michael Barber (leadership) ▪ McKinsey & Company


Download ppt "September 11, 2009 Everyman State: Using Delivery to Achieve Ambitious Graduation Goals American Diploma Project Network Annual Leadership Team Meeting."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google