NAF Leadership SummitJuly 15,2011

San Francisco, CA

Lupe Ferran Diaz, Ph.D.Director, School Choice & Parental Options

Miami-Dade County Public Schools

2

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. Cubans55% businesses Latino-owned

Blacks: Lost in the FrayNearly 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

Year Schools Pupils Teachers Salary*2006-07 378 353,283 22,006 47,179

2007-08 392 347,774 22,393 51,561

2008-09 415 345,150 21,260 50,180

2009-10 427 345,458 20,517 50,180

2010-11 435 347,133 20,322 52,440

*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

Language # students using as home language

Spanish 187,481

Haitian Creole 16,789

French 2,011

Portuguese 1,556

Zhongwen (Chinese) 672

Russian 519

Arabic 460

Urdu 409

Vietnamese 310

Hebrew 273

Source: Assessment, Research, and Data Analysis, Country of Origin and Language Frequencies.

High School and Adult-Vocational Enrollment 2010-11

High School Adult/Voc.*

101,276 5,656TOTAL

Source: High school: Student Data base system; Adult Vocational: Adult ED. Data Systems.

Enrollment In Magnet Programs, 2010-11

Program Enrollment

Career Academies 14,861International Programs 12,111

Liberal Art 5,063

Math & Science 4,769

Montessori 733

Visual & Performing Arts 5,881

TOTAL 43,418

Source: School Choice and Parental Options

Free/Reduced Price Lunch

Elementary K-8 Middle Combined Grades*

Senior District Average

Eligible Students 76.6% 56.4% 75.5% 65.6% 64.7% 70.2%

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.

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

High School*

17,058 17,918 18,770 19,139 20,056

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

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

The MARC Project

Results of MARC Instrument

Low Performing

Performing

High Performing

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

NAFDomain 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.

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

SLC

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.

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.

SLC NAF

• 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.

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)

SLC NAF

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.)

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.

SLC NAF

• 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.

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.

SLC 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

NAF

Different Data Points

Class Time

Teachers: Not Researchers

Fear of Retribution

Challenges & Obstacles

Measuring

OutcomesLack of Integrated

Data System

What’s Next

Lack of Comparable Data

Lack of Longitudinal Data

Sidney Harris's cartoon demonstrates

how to get past those pesky detail steps

Sidney Harris's cartoon demonstrates

how to get past those pesky detail steps

Encourages Critical Reflection

Student Input

Promotes Dialogue

Representative Teams

Important Aspects

Teamwork

Listening

Value

MostImportant

“It sort of makes you stop and think, doesn’t it.”

N = Knowledge Positive PersonalizeSwitch

SchoolsProjects Counselor

Creative Writing

(Required)19

6

32% 6/6

7

37%

5

26%

1

5%

4

21%

NAF AOIT

Academy28

8

29% 8/8

16

57%

0

0%

6

21%

3

11%

NAF Finance

(Academy)28

28

100% 28/28

25

89%

14

50%

0

0%

0

0%

NAF AOHT

(Academy)25

25

100% 25/25

20

80%

0

0%

20

80%

10

40%

Remedial Math 25

12

12% 8/25

12

48%

5

20%

0

0%

0

0%

Totals 12579

63%

75

125

80

64%

24

19%

27

22%

17

13%

Common ThemesCommon ThemesStatement Number of

StudentsNumber of

Classes

Need more hands-on activities and things like field trips.

93 5

Some teachers help more than others, some are just here to get a paycheck.

74 5

The Uniform Policy 110 5

Cell Phones 65 3

What do you like about your school? The academies

98 5

The new principal is too strict about little things

25 6

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

Student VoiceStudent VoiceWhat 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

ConnectEDUAlignment 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.

ConnectEDUGoal (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

ConnectEDU

ConnectEDU

ConnectEDUSuccess 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

• Data driven to knowledge driven– Data vs information

• All educators can get involved in data analysis since it’s all about improving instruction

• STOP asking: 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

In conclusion

Dr. Lupe Ferran Diazlupediaz@dadeschools.net

www.choice.dadeschools.net

Contact

NAF Leadership Conference 2011

Systemic Reform: Planning for Success

Dr. Christina M. KishimotoSuperintendent of Schools

July 15, 2011

40

• 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)

Hartford’s Context

41

Overview of Agenda

1.Where We Started – District Reform

2.Where We Are Today - Sustainability• Reform Phases• Redefining Ourselves

42

Where We Started Five Years Ago

2006-2011

4343

MEASURE2006/2007

HPS Baselines

2006/2007 State

Average

3RD GRADE READING 30.3% 69.2%

4TH GRADE MATHEMATICS

42.5% 80.9%

5TH GRADE WRITING 58.8% 85.3%

7TH GRADE MATHEMATICS

43.8% 77.8%

8TH GRADE SCIENCE 32.3%* 75.2%

10TH GRADE CAPT READING WRITING

49.8%56.6%

79.7%82.3%

COHORT GRADUATION RATE

29% 79.7%

POST SECONDARY ENROLLMENT

39% 62.9%

2006 DISTRICT PERFORMANCE BASELINE

2010-11 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT TARGETS – Revised 5/3/2011 *First Measured in 2008

44

Our Results Showed Us

That We Needed To Change Our Thinking

About How We Conduct Our Work

45

• 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

1. Managed Performance Empowerment Theory of Action (Don McAdams)

2. All Choice System of Schools - Portfolio

5 - Year Reform Plan

46

Board-Adopted Reform Policies:1. Redesign/Repurposing Policy2. Small School Policy3. Constituent Services4. School Governance Council Policy5. New High School Graduation Policy6. Succession Policy

Budgetary Approach• Student-Based Budgeting (Money follows the child)

Reform Governance

47

Phase IElementary:1. Core Knowledge Academy at Milner

Elementary (PK-8)2. Latino Studies Academy @ Burns (PK-8)3. CommPACT School at MD Fox (PK-8)Secondary (middle/high):4. Ninth Grade Academy at HPHS5. Law and Government Acad. at HPHS (10-

12)6. Academy of Engineering and Green Tech at

HPHS (9-12)7. Nursing Academy at HPHS (10-12) 8. Culinary Arts Academy at Weaver (9-12)PK-12 Pathways:9. Achievement First (K-8 Phase I; 9-12 Phase

V)10. International Baccalaureate (PK-12)

Elementary:1. Montessori Elementary II at Moylan (PK-6)2. America’s Choice @ SAND Elementary (PK-8)3. Breakthrough II (PK-8)

Secondary (middle/high):4. Bulkeley H.S. New American High School Model

– Lower School – Certificate of Initial Mastery

– Upper School – 2 pathways: Teacher Prep and Humanities

5. Journalism & Media Academy (9-12)6. High School, Inc. (9-12)7. Opportunity High School (alternative high

school)

Five Phases: 2008-2013

Phase II

Phase IIIElementary:1. STEM at Annie Fisher (PK-8)2. Asian Studies Academy @

Dwight/; Bellizzi (PK-8)3. Betances Early Reading Lab

School (PK-3)

Secondary (middle/high):4. Rawson Middle Grades

Academy

Elementary:1. Expeditionary Learning Academy at

Moylan (PK-5)2. Expeditionary Learning Academy at

McDonough (6-8)3. Naylor Professional Development

School (PK-8)

PK-12 Pathways:4. Hartford Magnet Trinity College

Academy (9-12)5. Montessori Middle (7-9)*

Five Phases: 2008-2013

Phase IV

Phase V to be determined based on 2010-11 OSI results.

50

Where We Are Relative to the Six Key Elements of a Portfolio Strategy

Center for Reinventing Public Education (Paul Hill)

1.School Autonomy

2.School Choice

3.School Finances

4.Human Capital

5.Performance Accountability

6.Public Engagement

51

Our Results Also Showed Us

That We Must Work Together For

Our Children’s Future

52

Highlights of Early Results

• Four* consecutive years of achievement growth

• 80% of our targets were below 50% achievement level in 2006; today 80% are above the 50% achievement level

• 3rd Grade Reading: 15.4% growth

• 7th Grade Mathematics: 22% growth

• 10th Grade Reading: 14.5% growth; Writing: 11.5% growth

• Graduation Rate: 11.9% growth; Post-Secondary Enrollment: 9.2% growth

52

53

Highlights of Two New NAF Academies

High School, Inc. (Finance) 2009-2011• 17.8% gain in Math at/above proficiency• 16.8% gain in Science at/above proficiency• 13.1% gain in Reading at/above proficiency• 31.0% gain in Writing at/above proficiency

HPHS Engineering & Green Technology 2009-2011• 11.6% gain in Math at/above proficiency• 11.1% gain in Science at/above proficiency• 4.2% gain in Reading at/above proficiency• 6.3% gain in Writing at/above proficiency

53

54

What Do These Results Tell Us?

We Can Do This!

55

Where Are We Going Next?

56

Systemic Reform: Three PhasesPhase I: 2006-2011

Challenge Assumptions of Practice

Change Practice

Produce Results (show that we can improve!)

Phase II: 2011-2016

Strategic Alignment (the birth of a new HPS!)

Accelerate Results through lessons learned

Phase III: 2016-2018

Sustained Practice: State/national model

CK: 2011-12 Strategic Planning 2011

57

Strategic Alignment for Closing the Achievement Gap

Third Grade Promise

Middle Years

Redesign

College Readiness

Relevant Curriculum School Design Fidelity

Capacity Building

Quality InstructionInnovative Leaders

College and

Career Success

CK: 2011-12 Strategic Planning 2011

Family & Community Engagement

Sustained Practice

Increase Capacity at Central Office:• Institutional Advancement• PK-12 Assistant Superintendent• Talent ManagementImprove Instructional Leadership:• School Quality Meetings

CMK: 2011-12 Strategic Planning

59

“Hartford Public Schools will serve as the State Capital’s Portfolio District of

Excellence”

Strategic Vision

CK: 2011-12 Strategic Planning 2011