Innovation Zone Update: Board Presentation March 12, 2012

Innovation Zone Update: Board Presentation March 12, 2012

Innovation Zone and Lead Partner strategy • Introduction to UP! and Cambium/NAEP • Performance contract overview • ESEA flexibility and local implications

Office of Transformation and Innovation Our Mission PSD’s new Office of Transformation and Innovation (OTI) is committed to dramatically improving student achievement in Providence’s lowest-performing schools and inspiring district-wide innovation and reform. Our Role • The OTI works directly with the district’s nine Innovation Schools and supports broader, district-wide reform efforts through three core functions: • Supporting Innovation Schools as they pursue innovative and sustainable reform strategies; • Monitoring progress made and outcomes achieved in the Innovation Schools; • Engaging partners and community members in the reform process.

Innovation Zone Structure within PPSD Flexible Conditions Additional Capacity Thoughtful Clustering Providence School Department Innovation Zone Office of Transformation and Innovation Lead Partner Lead Partner Lead Partner

District Turnaround Goals Short-Term Goal: Long-Term Goal: To dramatically accelerate and improve student achievement in the district’s most struggling schools by implementing comprehensive and innovative reform strategies and aligning district resources to support these efforts. To pursue broader, district-wide improvement by scaling promising practices, rethinking the structure of the district, and organizing the district central office to promote gains in student achievement.

What is a Lead Partner? Lead Partners: are organizations or units of district central offices on contract with the district or state to turn around schools. Lead Partners receives authority and flexibility and are accountable for results. The role of the Lead Partner is defined by four overarching responsibilities: 1 2 ACCOUNTABILITY AUTHORITY • Sign a 3-5 year performance contract for student achievement with the district or state that: • Assigns the Lead Partner responsibility for a small, intentional cluster of schools where systems and programs will be aligned • Holds the Lead Partner accountable for improving student achievement • Assume authority for decision making on school staffing (as well as time, money, and program); the Lead Partner: • Hires a new principal or approves the current one • Supports the principal in hiring and replacing teachers and has responsibility for bringing in a meaningful cohort of new instructional staff 3 4 COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES SCHOOL PRESENCE Provide core academic and student support services directly or by aligning the services of other programs and supporting partners, who are on sub-contracts with the Lead Partner, and build internal capacity within the schools and by extension, the district Maintain an embedded, consistent, and intense relationship with each school, requiring a presence in each school 5 days per week during the turnaround period

Critical Role and Function of Lead Partners: The Value Proposition for PPSD • Turnaround is complex and challenging work; Lead Partners provide additional capacity • Lead Partners bring knowledge and expertise and results in other urban districts • Lead Partners operate independently from the district and can be more efficient and more innovative • Lead Partners are designed to make the principal more successful by freeing up his/her time to serve as the building’s instructional leader • Turnaround schools are inundated with programs, partners, plans, etc.; the Lead Partner serves as the hub of these often disconnected spokes • Lead Partners experience scale benefits; by doing this work in multiple schools, they can provide the services at a lower cost than if one school were to do it alone • This is not a punitive measure; rather, we have the exciting opportunity to infuse our schools with additional capacity and turnaround expertise • Lead Partners will be held accountable for performance

Lead Partner Request for Qualifications (RFQ) Purpose:To identify highly effective Lead Partners to manage the turnaround process in clusters of Providence’s Innovation Schools. # of Responses:5

Inside the Innovation Zone Providence School Department Office of Transformation and Innovation Innovation Zone Lead Partner Feinstein @ Sackett St ES Gilbert Stuart MS Sanchez Complex Roger Williams MS Carl Lauro ES Mount Pleasant HS Pleasant View ES Young/ Woods ES Dr. Jorge Alvarez HS TBD Cluster 3 Lead Partner: Cambium/NAEP Cluster 1 Lead Partner: OTI Cluster 2 Lead Partner: UP!

About United Providence! UP!’s Mission UP!’s mission is to maximize student achievement in Providence’s most struggling schools by promoting innovation and fostering a truly collaborative environment for teaching and learning. In so doing, UP! will serve as a groundbreaking national model for student-centered collaboration between labor and management. Joint Labor-Management Compact • Rhode Island is the only state that allows districts to pursue the Restart model with an EMO managed collaboratively by labor and management. • A Joint Labor-Management Compact must detail reciprocal obligations that create a new management structure with shared decision-making designed to fully address the needs of each student in the school. Reciprocal Obligation • Reciprocal obligation is the mutual responsibility and commitment between labor and management to ensure student and school success. • Reciprocal obligation extends to other important parties in the educational process including staff, partners, and family and community members.

UP! Updates UP! also advanced the final round of the AFT Innovation Fund grant application process. UP! recently submitted its business plan to the Rhode Island Department of Education.

About Cambium/NAEP Cambium/NAEP’s Mission The mission of NAEP is to transform, sustain and accelerate education through the formation of partnerships with low-performing schools nationwide. NAEP works with schools and school districts to implement effective turnaround strategies such as building a system of outstanding schools to serve students, staff, families and the community in an accelerated learning environment that leaves no one behind. Approach to School Turnaround

Cambium/NAEP’s Experience and Track Record Example: Palm Beach County Example: Milwaukee Increases in the percentage of students scoring proficient or higher during the 2010-11 SY

Purpose and Goals of the Performance Contract Purpose: To articulate the roles, responsibilities, and expectations of the Lead Partner and the contracting local education agency. Goals: • Formalize any understandings between parties • Codify the terms of the partnership as described in the accepted proposal (as developed through the RFQ process) • Establish goals and benchmarks for both partners and districts/states • Create a sense of partnership and common goals • Provide a blueprint for the working relationship • Protect investments on both sides • Ensure fidelity of implementation • Clarify consequences for failing to meet any of the conditions (for all parties)

Importance of the MOU Lead Partners are guaranteed the autonomies, resources, and support services they need from the district to do the work The districtensures that Lead Partners will be held accountable for results Both parties benefit from a high level of detail and clarity upfront

Lead Partner Contracting Process MOU Process RFQ Selection Process Post-MOU Work • Issue Lead Partner Request for Qualifications (RFQ) • Market RFQ (identify and approach prospective partner organizations) • Review proposals and select partner(s) • Develop Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to guide relationship(s) with partner(s) • Negotiate terms of the MOU with the Lead Partner(s) • Provide ongoing oversight of performance agreements • Secure/Maintain autonomies described in the MOU • Provide services and supports described in the MOU • Ensure faithfulness of implementation The OTI will continue to drive this process with the support of the legal department.

Components of the MOU • Terms of Agreement: • Parties to the agreement • Duration of the agreement • Options for renewal, expiration, and termination • Funding and compensation for partners • Operating Conditions and Services: • Autonomies – Scope of decision-making authority over (1) people, (2) time, (3) money, and (4) programming • Mechanisms for securing autonomy – Ex: waivers/exemptions, thin contracts, EWAs 1 2 • Performance Accountability: • Implementation – Fidelity to the school reform plan and agreed upon scope of services and deliverables • Impact – Gains measured by leading and lagging indicators of school turnaround • Roles and Responsibilities: • Scope of services and deliverables • Service-/Resource- sharing agreements • Communication norms between the partner and contracting agency • Expectations of the partner and district 3 4

Lead Partner Performance Metrics In exchange for increased flexibility and authority, Lead Partners will be held accountability for implementing the school reform plans and improving student achievement.

Lead Partner Compensation • National benchmarking research shows that Lead Partners typically receive a management contract totaling approximately 7-12% of the school’s per pupil allocation. • During FY 09, PPSD’s per pupil allocation was $15,305. • Assuming that Lead Partners work with approximately 1,500 students, then a baseline management fee would be $1.6 M. • Therefore, the proposed contracts with Cambium/NAEP and UP! are reasonable and research-based.

What is the ESEA Waiver? History and Context • The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was enacted in 1965 to provide all students with equal access to a public education and establish high standards and accountability • In 2001, Congress amended and reauthorized ESEA as the No Child Lead Behind Act (NCLB); NCLB has been in place for over a decade; however, it has some flaws ESEA Flexibility: The Opportunity • The U.S. Department of Education has invited state education agencies (SEAs) to request flexibility on behalf of the state, local education agencies, and schools • States can voluntary choose to submit a waiver in order to pursue a state-developed plan to improve educational outcomes for all students, close achievement gaps, increase equity, and improve the quality of instruction Waiver Status • 11 states have already been approved for ESEA flexibility • 26 states and Washington, D.C. submitted flexibility requests in February 2012; the Rhode Island Department of Education submitted a waiver application in February

Anticipated Impact in Providence RIDE is identifying approximately 30 schools that will be required to implement interventions. Of these schools, 11 of them have already been identified as PLA schools and, for those schools, their identification with not change their requirements, funding, or plans. Based on Providence’s past performance, we should be prepared to have at least half of the remaining schools identified in our district. • The School Improvement Grant program will no longer exist in its current form (e.g., the four models no longer apply) • RIDE must identify Reward, Priority, and Focus schools • Priority and Focus Schools must develop and implement reform plans in accordance with the processes outlined by RIDE and approved by the US DOE • SEAs and LEAs will have increased flexibility over certain federal funding streams • More schools in Providence will be identified, and more schools will be identified soon • Low-performing schools will be expected to design bold and comprehensive reform plans; however, schools will have more flexibility in designing these reform strategies • We must continue to invest in the Innovation Zone so that we are prepared for the next round of Focus and Priority Schools

RIDE’s Proposed Tiered Intervention Strategy for Low-Performing Schools Focus and Priority Schools identified by RIDE (spring 2012) Reward Schools The state’s high-performing and high-progress schools RIDE completes diagnostic identifying LEA and school strengths and weaknesses School Year 2011-12, Summer ‘12 Closure Restart Flex plan Priority Schools The state’s lowest-performing schools equal to at least 5% of the State’s Title I schools RIDE approval RIDE approval School Year 2012-13 Planning Early implementation Focus Schools A number of low-performing schools equal to at least 10% of the State’s Title I Schools School Year 2013-14 Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation School Year 2014-15

For More Information Email us: transformation@ppsd.org Visit our website: www.ppsdinnovationzone.org

Innovation Zone Update: Board Presentation March 12, 2012