Rapid District Improvement

1. Rapid District Improvement Academy of Pacesetting States July 20, 2009 Brett Lane Technical Advisor to the Center on Innovation & Improvement

2. Presentation Overview What is Rapid District Improvement? • The Rapid Improvement Pathway • Improvement Infrastructure (or Capacities) Exploring the Rapid Improvement Pathway • Exemplary case studies of Burrton Public Schools (Kansas) and Kansas City Kansas Public Schools Considerations for our Work

3. What do we mean by rapid district improvement? As an outcome, it means: • Dramatic changes in district structures, culture, policies and processes that occur within the first 1 to 3 years of the effort. • Evidence of significant improvement in instructional practices and student performance, within 3 to 4 years. • Changes and improvement are system-wide, including evidence of sustainability.

4. What do we mean by rapid district improvement? But also as: • A Rapid Improvement Pathway, depicting the catalysts and key levers of district improvement. • An Improvement Infrastructure (or set of improvement capacities) through which the district is entirely focused on improving all aspects of the district as a system.

5. Rapid Improvement Pathway

6. Rapid Improvement Pathway

7. District Profiles Burrton Public Schools • 275 students • 28 certified teachers • Student population is predominately White; 50 % Free/Reduced Lunch Kansas City Kansas Public Schools • 19,000 students • Diverse student population (44% African-American, 35% Hispanic; 25% ELL) • 80% Free/Reduced Lunch In five years (since 2004), student academic performance increased from 50 to 60 percent (in Reading and Math) to 91.7 percent proficiency in Reading and 87.5 percent proficiency in Math (Spring 2009). The percentage of KCKPS student proficient in Reading increased from 11 percent in 1996 to 58 percent in 2008. Similarly, the percentage of students proficient in Math increased from 3 percent in 1996 to 56 percent in 2008.

8. Catalyzing Conditions for Rapid District Improvement A catalyzing event or external change agent that: • Heightens awareness of critical academic deficiencies • Increases the urgency, among school board and district leaders • Presents a Window of Opportunity (e.g., change in policies, conditions, mandate, funding) A minimal Threshold of Capacity • Board, District Leaders, Principals or Teachers

9. Catalyzing Conditions for Rapid District Improvement There was this infamous meeting that we all remember where the superintendent showed the district leadership and the administrators what our data really looked like and that was pivotal; you think that as educators that we use data to drive instruction, but back then we didn’t really. As long as we thought our kids were moving, we didn’t look at the data. So at that point when we saw the data, we knew we had to do something. ...there were audible gasps among the room, and people left the auditorium in tears. After that point, we never had an argument about needing to do something. Kansas City Kansas Public Schools Reflections on the impetus for districtwide reform

10. Defining a System-wide Improvement Effort The district engages in a districtwide improvement effort that is: • System-wide, it includes all schools and staff • Linked to broadly defined needs • Depicts a vision of the district that is dramatically different than the status quo; the vision requires rapid, intense and dramatic changes There is a process for communicating and creating an initial base of support. • Here is what we are going to do, it will require dramatic change, and here is our vision!

11. Defining a System-wide Improvement Effort If you are really serious about it and you are going to make comprehensive change, you can’t just tinker around the edges. You need to make comprehensive changes that dramatically impact all the stakeholders in the district, including parents, community members, teachers, principals, custodians, food service..everyone. What made this (First Things First) work has to be the fact that we did this Pre-K to 12 across the entire district and that everyone across the district knew the vision, had a common language, and knew that we were going to stay with it. Former Superintendent Ray Daniels Kansas City Kansas Public Schools

12. Becoming an Improvement-Oriented Learning Organization • Reorganize the district office so that all resources, policies, functions, and actions are supporting improvement. • Reorient district culture and belief towards collective responsibility and accountability. • Support collective problem solving by providing dedicated time, space, and autonomy to professionals. • Build leadership and instructional capacity through a dual focus on improving instruction and improving relationships.

13. Becoming an Improvement-Oriented Learning Organization Why did we have the Instructional Coach and the Principal report to the district? Because we wanted to build collective responsibility for the results of that school between both the principal and the person responsible for the ongoing staff development at that school. We wanted to create a partnership between those two and we wanted them to be able to talk professionally and as critical friends to each other when necessary, but also work in concert and in partnership with one another. We wanted to create a scenario where it was the two of them to work together to reach the goals together. Steve Gering, Former Deputy Superintendent Kansas City Kansas Public Schools

14. Implications for State Systems of Support Hypothesis #1: Rapid improvement requires that districts simultaneously: (a) set non-negotiable expectations* that will require schools to rethink how they are organized and how they teach and (b) provide schools with the autonomy, flexibility, and skills needed to figure out how to meet the non-negotiable expectations. Hypothesis #2: Rapid district improvement requires that the district engage in a systemwide improvement effort that requires rapid and dramatic change. Hypothesis #3: Rapidly improving districts direct all resources, personnel, and strategies towards improving the district as a system and improving teaching and learning; they are improvement-oriented. Hypothesis #4: A district that lacks the ability to carry out its core functions will not be able to engage in rapid improvement without significant support from an external partner. Hypothesis #5: Rapid Improvement cannot be mandated or required by state or federal policy. *Also supported by Waters, T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006), who provide a compelling and rigorous research base that articulates the concept of “defined autonomy” as setting non-negotiable goals for achievement and classroom instruction and providing schools with the responsibility and authority for determining how to meet those goals