DELIVERY BOOTCAMP Delivery Primer

1. DELIVERY BOOTCAMP Delivery Primer

3. Session Objectives Our goal is for participants to: Learn the history of Delivery and of EDI Be introduced to the Delivery Framework Learn about the Access 2 Success Network and EDI’s involvement Learn California State University has employed Delivery in their system

4. Today’s Agenda The CSU Story Overview of EDI The Access 2 Success Network

5. EDI was created to help bring the delivery methodology to implementation of education reform in the US …He founded the Prime Minster’s Delivery Unit (PMDU) in 2001 to help the British government implement his agenda… …and within four years, the government was on track to hit over 80% of its high-priority targets Prime Minister Blair issued a call for change in June 2001… • Percent of targets on track • PMDU responsibilities • Monitor and report on the delivery of the Prime Minister’s top priorities • Identify key barriers that prevent improvements and actions needed to strengthen implementation • Strengthen departmental capacity to deliver through better planning and sharing knowledge about best practice • 83 • 62 • 47 “…a mandate for reform… and an instruction to deliver” Delivery is based on the methodology the PMDU innovated in doing this work From the remarks of Tony Blair after winning his second election in June 2001

6. A Delivery Story: Leaves on the Line The Problem of Autumn: Grinding out improved rail reliability

7. 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% PPM 70% 65% 60% 55% 0% Mar 98 Mar 99 Mar 00 Mar 01 Mar 02 Mar 03 Mar 04 Mar 97 Rail punctuality varies seasonally and reached an all-time low after the Hatfield crash in October 2000 National actual PPM (period data) Hatfield crash

8. 95% Post Hatfield peak 90% 85% 80% 75% PPM 70% Hatfield crash 65% 60% 55% 0% Mar 98 Mar 99 Mar 00 Mar 01 Mar 02 Mar 03 Mar 04 Mar 97 Rail varies seasonally but punctuality reached a post Hatfield peak that year National actual PPM (period data) National Public Performance Measure (PPM) – actual data against Moving Annual Average (MAA) National moving annual average

9. Rail punctuality varies seasonally and reach a post Hatfield peak – for autumn - that year National actual PPM (period data) National Public Performance Measure (PPM) – actual data against Moving Annual Average (MAA) National moving annual average 95% Post Hatfield peak 90% 85% 80% 75% PPM 70% Hatfield crash 65% Autumn performance almost at pre-Hatfield levels 60% 55% 0% Mar 98 Mar 99 Mar 00 Mar 01 Mar 02 Mar 03 Mar 04 Mar 97 Source: Department of Transport

10. 1. Establish a shared goal 3. It’s all in the detail • Demanding and realistic • Align key players around the goal • Whistles and watches • Joint Control Centres 2. Manage performance 4. Autumn shouldn’t be a surprise • Don’t just connect the data, use it • Monthly reviews with each train operating company • The weather is a variable • Preparation should be constant Rail reliability: The messages are clear

11. EDI serves state systems of public education and higher education across the United States Current EDI Partner Systems Our mission is to partner with K-12 and higher education systems with ambitious reform agendas and invest in their leaders' capacity to deliver results.  By employing all or parts of a proven approach, known as delivery, we help state leaders maintain the necessary focus to plan and drive reform. K-12 Higher Education Both

12. In addition to states, EDI partners with a number of organizations and on discrete projects • The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) • Implementing Common Core Support (ICCS) • Network for Transforming Educator Preparation (NTEP) • Cross-State Learning Collaborative (CSLC) • Deputies support • Strategic planning • Complete College America (CCA) Current EDI organizational partners and projects • Kentucky Personal Growth and Effectiveness System (KY PGES) • EL Haynes Charter School • Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) • Reform Support Network (RSN) • Communications • Sustainability • Turnaround • Standards • Race to the Top – District (RTTTD) • Helmsley Foundation

13. “delivery” (n.) is a systematic process through which system leaders can drive progress and deliver results. What is our system trying to do? 1 How are we planning to do it? 2 At any given moment, how will we know whether we are on track? 3 If not, what are we going to do about it? 4 The delivery approach produces results by focusing leaders on four fundamental questions It will enable a system to answer the following questions rigorously:

14. Develop a foundation for delivery With the help of the original practitioners and EDI’s own early experiences, the delivery approach has been distilled into 15 essential elements 1 2 3 4 Understand the delivery challenge Drive delivery Plan for delivery Help system decide what it is trying to do for its students Help system understand its current state and why Help system connect current work to goals for students Help system remain focused on its priorities • Determine your reform strategy • Set targets and establish trajectories • Produce delivery plans • Establish routines to drive and monitor performance • Solve problems early and rigorously • Sustain and continually build momentum • Define your aspiration • Review the current state of delivery • Build the delivery unit • Establish a “guiding coalition” • Evaluate past and present performance • Understand drivers of performance and relevant activities 5 Create an irreversible delivery culture A. Build system capacity all the time B. Communicate the delivery message C. Unleash the “alchemy of relationships” Help stakeholders inside and outside of the system understand the work underway and how they connect to the work

15. We believe that a committed leadership team using the delivery tools will achieve significant results for students Bold, committed leadership Building the skillset of a small group within the agency Rigorous and consistent application of 15 elements across the agency Results for students

16. At EDI, you may here people make references to a linchpin linchpin (n.) A pin passed through the end of an axel to keep a wheel in position Used figuratively to mean something, or someone, that holds the various elements of a complicated structure together

17. EDI has 3 main types of support for partner systems • Tools, resources, and best • practices • Manage a continuously evolving body of knowledge about delivery, including: • Case stories • Exemplars of work in partner systems • Tools such as rubrics, templates, exercises, and training materials • Short video lessons on each element of delivery by Michael Barber • Available to network systemsvia online learning portal • Network of delivery • leaders • Create a professional learning community ofdelivery practitioners • Support via face-to-face convenings, webinars, and conference calls • Available to prospective partners, intensive engagement systems,and “alumni” • Intensive engagement • Dedicated Engagement Manager who provides on-the-ground and virtual support • 12-18 months of support • Available to systems that commit to fully implementing the delivery approach

18. A typical intensive engagement focuses on capacity-building, especially in the early stages “Typical” Engagement Timeline • Resources required for intensive engagement • 40% of an FTE dedicated to state • Support from CEO/Deputy Director and other program staff • Two 1-2 day trips per month • Resources may be more intensive in early stages and taper off later • Critical success factors • State chief commitment • Access to senior team • Established delivery leader/unit Activities Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct • Delivery capacity review • Creation of delivery unit • Initial training • Public kickoff: integrating delivery and project mgmt • Facilitate delivery planning • Establish delivery routines: • Stocktakes • Monthly notes • Train and coach delivery unit

19. EDI Organization Chart, Eff. March 20, 2014 Chief Executive Officer: Kathy Cox Program Director: Ellyn Artis K-12 Director: Nick Rodriguez Director of Finance and Operations: Mike DiConti Higher Education Director & Executive Director of NASH Rebecca Martin K-12 (50%) Senior Engagement Manager: Monica Martinez Program Manager: Sara Kerr Accounting Manager: Marc Raffel HE (50%) Senior Engagement Manager: Monica Martinez Program Associate: Duncan Robb K-12 Engagement Manager: Corey Sullivan Executive Assistant: Lisa Smith HE Engagement Manager: Omari Burnside Program Associate: Ashleigh McFadden K-12 Engagement Manager: Tom DeWire Executive Assistant: Krissy Haynes EDI EM (50%); NASH Coordinator (50%): Jonathan Gagliardi Program Associate: Lauren Strickland K-12 Engagement Manager: Lauren Kurczewski Program Associate: AashaRajani K-12 Engagement Manager: Catherine Cullen K-12 Engagement Manager: Richard Eyre

20. Today’s Agenda The CSU Story Overview of EDI The Access 2 Success Network

21. Delivery in the California State University System

22. In 2009, the California State University system joined the Access to Success Initiative and set ambitious goals They committed to increase graduation rates an additional six percentage points, while cutting in half the gap for underrepresented students by 2015

23. The system held a “Graduation Initiative” kickoff with campus leaders from the 23 CalState institutions Goals: • Agree on goals • Identify preliminary strategies • Establish planning timeline Participants: • System Chancellor • Chief Academic Officer • All 23 campus presidents • All 23 campus provosts

24. Campus leaders agreed to achieve grad rates that would put them in the top quartile of national averages of peer institutions This would raise the overall system graduation rate to 54 percent.

25. Leaders prioritized system- and campus-level strategies based on projected impact These high-priority strategies were included in campus delivery plans • Advising • -Peer advising • -Electronic advising • Road maps • DARs • Block registration for 1 year (medium/high)

26. Leaders prioritized system- and campus-level strategies based on projected impact These high-priority strategies were included in campus delivery plans • Advising • -Peer advising • -Electronic advising • Road maps • DARs • Block registration for 1 year (medium/high)

27. Delivery plans varied in depth and quality, but guided campuses to kick-start or formalize student success efforts Strategies Key stakeholders Interim milestones Progress monitoring Each campus plan included elements of delivery taught at the meeting

28. As campuses began their work, the CSU Delivery Team simultaneously developed a system-level delivery plan… The team solicited suggestions for system-level actions from campus stakeholders • Automated Degree Audit • New Funding Models • Improving College Readiness • Online Courses • Highlighting Innovative Campus Actions • Affordable Learning Solutions • Equity Scorecard • GE Reform • Improved Transfer Curriculum • Common CSU Course Numbering System • Community College Outreach • Making Excellence Inclusive • Reduction in Units to Degree • Transfer Course Articulation • Universal CSU Calendar

29. …and strengthened connections with campus teams to build capacity and drive progress • Campus visits • Initially with all 23, now with select campuses • Workshops for campus leaders • Leading Indicators & Using Data • Strategies Targeting URM Students • Engaging Faculty in the Student Success Agenda • Bimonthly campus notes • What did your team commit to completing during the past two months? • What did you do and how did it help? • What will you accomplish in the next two months? • Graduation Initiative Summit • Reconvened all provosts to revisit data and refocus on strategies

30. Example: Early bimonthly note from CSU campus

31. Focused, sustained efforts to promote student success led to promising early results After a year of delivery, CSU saw the highest overall graduation rate and the highest URM graduation rate it had ever seen…but the equity gaps continued to widen

32. They went back and refocused their efforts to target strategies toward gap-closing… The team has sustained momentum through continued routines and targeted strategies • Early Start Initiative • Graduation Calculator • Require declaration of major by 60 units • Additional charges for units over 132 • Create a common student numbering system • Reward campuses that increase URM grad rates and those who exceed grad rate target • Lower cut scores in Math and English to national averages • Suspend all academic programs over 120 Units • Automated Degree Audit • New Funding Models • Improving College Readiness • Online Courses • Highlighting Innovative Campus Actions • Affordable Learning Solutions • Equity Scorecard • GE Reform • Improved Transfer Curriculum • Common CSU Course Numbering System • Community College Outreach • Making Excellence Inclusive • Reduction in Units to Degree • Transfer Course Articulation • Universal CSU Calendar • Data-driven Decision Making

33. Leading indicators suggest their efforts are paying off Data shows a continued increase in graduation rates and leading indicators suggest that gaps are beginning to narrow Campuses focus on the 2009 cohort’s year-to-year retention given differences in freshman cohort composition First and second year retention data show improvements are being made to close the achievement gap

34. The CSU delivery team continues to sustain momentum by ‘reinventing’ their delivery effort • Bid out $7.2M dollars to campuses to support strategies related to increasing student success and closing the achievement gap • Engaged their new chancellor in this effort so that it remains a priority for the system • Chartered a path to reset the goals in this next phase The team has successfully…

35. Today’s Agenda The CSU Story Overview of EDI The Access 2 Success Network

36. The Access to Success Initiative: Charting a Necessary Path Ellyn Artis, Simon Day, & Richard Page-Jones March 8, 2010

37. WHAT WE DO The Education Trust WHO WE ARE The Education Trust works for the high academic achievement of all students at all levels, pre-kindergarten through college, and forever closing the achievement gaps that separate low-income students and students of color from other youth. Our basic tenet is this — All students will learn at high levels when they are taught to high levels. Advocacy to help schools, colleges, and communities mount campaigns to close gaps Research and policy analysis on patterns and practices that cause or close gaps Technical assistance to schools, colleges, and community-based organizations to raise student achievement and close gaps

38. 19 Systems, 300 Campuses, 3.5 Million Students18% of Public Undergrads | 866K URMs | 1 million Pell Recipients Colorado State University System | Kentucky Council of Postsecondary Education | Louisiana Board of Regents | Minnesota State Colleges and Universities | Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning | Montana University System | New Jersey Higher Education | Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education | Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education | State University of New York | State University System of Florida | Tennessee Board of Regents | The California State University System | University of Hawaii System | University of Louisiana System | University of Missouri System | University of North Carolina System | University of Texas System | University of Wisconsin System |

39. The A2S Commitments • Cut current gaps in half by 2015 for college entry and completion • Reflect the economic & racial diversity of the state • Count students who are not always counted • Improve overall student access and success • Report on progress publicly each year

40. The Access to Success Imperative • Need to produce more college graduates to compete in the global economy • Changing demographics demand focus on underrepresented populations • Current trends moving in the wrong direction in terms of real progress on access and success

41. Measuring progress toward A2S goals • ACCESS: Does the system’s entering class reflect the economic and racial diversity of its state’s high school graduates? • SUCCESS: How do the success rates of low-income and underrepresented minority students compare with those of other students in the system? • ACCESS+SUCCESS: Do the system’s graduates reflect the diversity of its state’s high school graduates?

42. A2S Metrics Count All Students • Include allstudents, not just first-time, full-time • Include part-time and transfer students, many of whom are low-income and underrepresented minorities • Report retention and success rates for low-income and transferstudentsat institution and in system

43. Benchmarking Progress on Success • Are we increasing success rates for underrepresented students? • GAP: Are we increasing success rates for underrepresented students relative to peers?

44. Benchmarking Progress on Success The data handouts answer these and other questions about student success on your campus.

45. Are we increasing overall graduation rates? • What is the overall freshmen rate? • What is the rate for transfer students? • How have these rates changed over time?

46. Are we increasing graduation rates for underrepresented students? • What is the grad rate of Pell freshmen? • What is the grad rate of non-Pell freshmen? • How do rates for these student groups differ?

47. Are we increasing graduation rates for underrepresented students? • How have graduation rates for Pell and non-Pell freshmen changed over time?

48. Are we increasing graduation rates for underrepresented students? • How has the Pell freshmen rate changed over time? • How has the non-Pell freshmen rate changed? • Has the graduation rate gap between these groups narrowed or widened over time?