NAF Leadership SummitJuly 15,2011San Francisco, CALupe Ferran Diaz, Ph.D.Director, School Choice & Parental OptionsMiami-Dade County Public Schools
Miami’s Extreme Contrasts • Rich & PoorGlitz & Grime • South Beach & Fisher Island • Poorest City
Low Wage Economy • Little Industry; little organized labor • Services and retail largest • Wages lower than elsewhere
High Cost of Housing • Rent burden highest in US • Nearly ½ of renters spend > 30% of income on rent • 41% of homeowners pay > 30% income on mortgage payments • At every level of income, central city households, Black households, and suburban Latino households are increasingly living in poorer neighborhoods than whites with comparable incomes.
Power Unprecedented power of 1st generation immigrants, viz. Cubans 55% businesses Latino-owned Blacks: Lost in the Fray Nearly 20% of population, less than 10% of businesses Haitians the most discriminated group only recently matched by Muslims and those from the Middle East Working class whites have left, but professionals and entrepreneurs remain
M-DCPS • County-wide school system; • Fourth largest system in the nation; • Management of schools is totally independent of metropolitan and city governments; • Nine-member School Board is elected by single member districts; • Each of the district’s schools is assigned to one of six Regional Centers.
General Information-Five Year Trend *Average teacher’s salary excluding fringe benefits (Salary for ten months).
Summary of top ten languages (other than English) Used as primary language by students Source: Assessment, Research, and Data Analysis, Country of Origin and Language Frequencies.
High School and Adult-Vocational Enrollment 2010-11 TOTAL Source: High school: Student Data base system; Adult Vocational: Adult ED. Data Systems.
Enrollment In Magnet Programs, 2010-11 Source:SchoolChoiceandParentalOptions
Free/Reduced Price Lunch Source: Assessment, Research, and Analysis.
Graduates *Includes regular and exceptional student diplomas, but excludes certificates of completion. Source: High school: Student data base system, October 2010.
M-DCPS and NAF • 14 Academy of Finance programs • 13 Academy of Hospitality and Tourism programs • 14 Academy of Information Technology Programs • 3 Academy of Engineering programs • 44 NAF programs District-wide • For 2011-12: 3 additional programs
The MARC Project GOAL: Build capacity in existing NAF Programs Assessment Criteria Used to Select NAF Programs for MARC • Level of student recruitment activities • Participation at/in NAF Academy events • Level of communication with the District office • Administrative participation/representation • Relevant program of study in place
Results of MARC Instrument 11 Low Performing Academies 17 Performing Academies 11 High Performing Academies
Selection of Consultants/Activities • Selection of NAF Consultants • Reviewed list of retired principals and assistant principals • Selected candidates to be interviewed; • NAF and district interviewed the candidates; • Five candidates were selected. • Activities • Diagnostics • Monthly site visits • Professional Development • District meetings
MARC Success and Things Learned The success of MARC was the interaction between the district, who respectfully listened to consultant feedback, a very committed consultant group, and a partner, NAF who shared knowledge of academy development and tools to support the team. The power of partnerships! • Respect school level personnel time • Principals also need support • Build a bench • Respect teachers and the work they do – recognize that they need and want support
SLC NAF • Core Principle 1: Personalized Learning Environment • All students meet high academic standards. (Essential to both models) • Personalized environment has an academically rigorous curriculum with relevance to the real work, and builds upon student and community assets. (Essential to both models) • Interactions are defined by trust, respect, open communication, clear, shared expectations & a safe and welcoming climate. (Explicit for NAF; implicit for SLCs) • KEY DIFFERENCES: • NAF does not specify eliminating or restructuring honors programs Domain 1: Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning Teams • Interdisciplinary teams are organized around the students the team shares in common. And the student group is kept small. Within a small community students are more likely to form relationships with teachers & the school. • The SLC rubric defines the size of the academy, specifies that teachers & students work together for multiple years, and indicates teachers should spend more than half of their time within the Academy. • Common planning time is essential and team collaboration strengthens the collective responsibility for students. (Essential to both models) • KEY DIFFERENCES: • SLC does not describe interactions in terms of trust, open communication, and shared expectations, but only refers to building strong relationships.
SLC NAF • Core Principle #2: Academic Engagement of All Students • Educators and students co-construct relevant learning experiences & connect learning to students’ cultural & linguistic communities. Adults actively connect students with resources, guidance and information needed for decisions about the future. NAF provides linkages to paid summer internships – a key component of the NAF model. • KEY DIFFERENCES: • NAF emphasizes paid internships as a key component to the model. • NAF also provides a curriculum for teachers and students to implement – SLCs design their own. Domain 2: Rigorous and Relevant Curriculum • SLCs facilitate a more authentic, active form of student learning. Teachers design work that is both challenging and personally meaningful to students. (Active, authentic learning is essential to both models; high standards and relevance to real world is also essential to both models.) • The SLC rubric indicates that flexible scheduling is key – for blocks of time to do field work, and projects. • The SLC rubric indicates that the most engaging curriculum involves more than half of the student’s instructional day & more than one year of study. • KEY DIFFERENCE: Successful SLCs create engaging interdisciplinary curricula through collaboration with community based partners – whereas the curriculum is provided with a NAF academy and is based on industry standards.
SLC NAF Core Principle #3: Empowered Educators Educators (teachers, student services, administrators) work collaboratively and continue to learn about their field to improve their practice for high student outcomes. Educators have ongoing, job-embedded professional development – and is coupled with support for engaging in new practices. (Essential to both models) NAF model provides common planning time. (Essential to both models) • Domain 3: Inclusive Program and Practices • SLCs are an approach to reducing the achievement gap among students of different economic, linguistic, cultural and racial backgrounds. Students self-select into the program and may purse both honors and remedial work within the program. • Successful SLCs include Special Ed and ELL teachers along with guidance counselors into the teaching team. • KEY DIFFERENCE: NAF maintains high standards for all students.
SLC NAF Core Principle #4: Accountable Leaders There is a requirement for a vision & mission statement, along with a strategic plan. Leaders at all levels work with students, schools and communities to establish equitable practices and policies for student learning. (Key Difference) Academy Leaders use data to monitor and communicate progress to all stakeholders, including NAF. (Data-Driven decision making essential to both models). KEY DIFFERENCES: The requirement for a vision, mission statement and a strategic plan is unique to NAF. There is a national organization that provides both support, technical assistance and monitoring. Domain 4: Continuous Program Improvement • Successful SLCs engage in continuous and ongoing reflection on practices – using data to make decisions and monitor the process. The data includes, but is not limited to, student outcome data (attendance, grade, FCAT). (Essential to both models.) • Teams analyze student work & solicit student feedback. (Essential to both models) • Teams develop own professional development plan. (Essential to both models.)
SLC NAF Core Principle #5: Engaged Community and Youth All facets of the community including parents, business partners, post-secondary education, government agencies are all involved in improving high school and high school outcomes. NAF academies engage community through Advisory Boards. Leaders communicate student outcomes to local advisory boards. Advisory Boards help secure paid internships for students. • Domain 5: Building (a) & District (b) Support • All SLC practices must be supported by both the local school administration and the district. • The local school administration needs to staff, schedule and plan professional development to meet SLC needs. • The district must allow self-governance for SLCs. (Key Difference) • Administration and content-area leaders function as support to the SLCs. • School restructures or eliminates at-risk and honors programs so student achievement is not a determinant of SLC membership & high standards are a feature of all programs. • KEY DIFFERENCE: • SLC rubric discusses school autonomy from state and district levels.
NAF • Core Principle #6: Integrated System of High Standards, Curriculum, Instruction, Assessments, and Supports • In a NAF academy there are common expectations for all students and clearly communicated guidelines for success for each grade and including transition to college. • The NAF curriculum establishes clear & rigorous standards through work-based and project-based learning. (Emphasis on work-based & project-based learning is mirrored in the SLC commitment to interdisciplinary learning.) • Academies develop and utilize multiple assessments, including performance based measures. • KEY DIFFERENCES: • The established curriculum
Challenges & Obstacles Lack of Longitudinal Data Different Data Points Measuring Outcomes Lack of Integrated Data System What’s Next Lack of Comparable Data Teachers: Not Researchers Fear of Retribution Class Time
Sidney Harris's cartoon demonstrates how to get past those pesky detail steps
Most Important Value Listening Teamwork Encourages Critical Reflection Important Aspects Student Input Promotes Dialogue Representative Teams
Student Voice NAF’s promise: • Personalization • Empowerment • Differentiated Instruction • Hands-On Activities • Relevant Learning • Internships • Interdisciplinary projects • Connections to the world of work and high school • Learning takes place beyond the school What students want: • Teachers who know them. • Teachers who listen to their opinions. • Hands-on Activities • Projects and Problem Based Learning • Connected to the real world • Field trips with assigned academic work
ConnectEDU Alignment to District Goals: • Ensure achievement of high academic standards by all students. • Develop our students so that they are able to successfully compete in the global economy. • Actively engage family and community members to become partners in raising and maintaining high student achievement. • Reform business practices to ensure efficiency, effectiveness and high ethical standards.
ConnectEDU Goal (Broad statement describing a desired end result or achievement as a successful outcome of the project) • Provide a vendor developed and hosted system to senior high school students to assist with course planning, and selection of post-secondary education options including application, scholarships, and direct linkages to colleges and universities Objectives (A measurable means necessary to accomplish stated goals) • Current in-district options for course planning and college planning are largely manual and require significant counselor intervention. Connect EDU would provide a portal where students can leverage their existing course credit information into a full featured post-secondary educational planning and selection tool.
ConnectEDU Success Measurement (Documented criteria to determine objectives have been met) • Evidence of at least 70% of college eligible seniors showing activity in the Connect EDU system in one year of full implementation • Evidence of at least 50 college applications being submitted in one year of full implementation • Evidence of at least 50 scholarship applications being submitted in one year of full implementation
In conclusion • Data driven to knowledge driven • Data vs information • All educators can get involved in data analysis since it’s all about improving instruction • STOPasking: How many passed? What were our scores? • START asking: What do they know? What don’t they know? What are we going to do about it? Increase achievement of all students and eliminate any learning gaps
Contact Dr. Lupe Ferran Diaz email@example.com www.choice.dadeschools.net
NAF Leadership Conference 2011Systemic Reform: Planning for Success Dr. Christina M. Kishimoto Superintendent of Schools July 15, 2011
Hartford’s Context • 25,000 students/City of approx 18 sq miles • 93.3% poverty rate • Most families headed by a single working parent • In the second wealthiest state in the U.S.* • The second poorest city per capita in the country* • With the greatest achievement gap of all 50 states** * 2000 Census ** National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
Overview of Agenda • Where We Started – District Reform • Where We Are Today - Sustainability • Reform Phases • Redefining Ourselves
Where We Started Five Years Ago 2006-2011
2006 DISTRICT PERFORMANCE BASELINE 43 2010-11 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT TARGETS – Revised 5/3/2011 *First Measured in 2008
Our Results Showed Us That We Needed To Change Our Thinking About How We Conduct Our Work
5 - Year Reform Plan • 2006-2011: Systemic Reform • New Vision and Mission • Board engages in Reform Governance in Action • Achievement Gap Defined – Data Transparency • Created an Accountability Matrix • Reform Strategy: Two Pillars of Reform • Managed Performance Empowerment Theory of Action (Don McAdams) • All Choice System of Schools - Portfolio
Reform Governance Board-Adopted Reform Policies: • Redesign/Repurposing Policy • Small School Policy • Constituent Services • School Governance Council Policy • New High School Graduation Policy • Succession Policy Budgetary Approach • Student-Based Budgeting (Money follows the child)
Five Phases: 2008-2013 Phase I Elementary: • Core Knowledge Academy at Milner Elementary (PK-8) • Latino Studies Academy @ Burns (PK-8) • CommPACT School at MD Fox (PK-8) Secondary (middle/high): • Ninth Grade Academy at HPHS • Law and Government Acad. at HPHS (10-12) • Academy of Engineering and Green Tech at HPHS (9-12) • Nursing Academy at HPHS (10-12) • Culinary Arts Academy at Weaver (9-12) PK-12 Pathways: • Achievement First (K-8 Phase I; 9-12 Phase V) • International Baccalaureate (PK-12) Elementary: • Montessori Elementary II at Moylan (PK-6) • America’s Choice @ SAND Elementary (PK-8) • Breakthrough II (PK-8) Secondary (middle/high): • Bulkeley H.S. New American High School Model • Lower School – Certificate of Initial Mastery • Upper School – 2 pathways: Teacher Prep and Humanities • Journalism & Media Academy (9-12) • High School, Inc. (9-12) • Opportunity High School (alternative high school) Phase II
Five Phases: 2008-2013 Phase III Elementary: • STEM at Annie Fisher (PK-8) • Asian Studies Academy @ Dwight/; Bellizzi (PK-8) • Betances Early Reading Lab School (PK-3) Secondary (middle/high): • Rawson Middle Grades Academy Elementary: • Expeditionary Learning Academy at Moylan (PK-5) • Expeditionary Learning Academy at McDonough (6-8) • Naylor Professional Development School (PK-8) PK-12 Pathways: • Hartford Magnet Trinity College Academy (9-12) • Montessori Middle (7-9)* Phase IV Phase V to be determined based on 2010-11 OSI results.
Where We Are Relative to the Six Key Elements of a Portfolio Strategy • Center for Reinventing Public Education (Paul Hill) • School Autonomy • School Choice • School Finances • Human Capital • Performance Accountability • Public Engagement