Compact toolkit:
working draft
Working draft
December 22, 2010
CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY
Any use of this material without specific permission of McKinsey & Company is strictly prohibited
“The goal of the compact initiative is to improve collaboration
and innovation between charter and districts schools to provide
all students in a city with a portfolio of highly effective education
options, accelerating 80 percent college readiness in the city.”
-- Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
McKinsey & Company
| 1
Purpose of this toolkit
Purpose
How cities should use the
toolkit
▪
▪
View this document as a
“toolkit” with potentially
helpful guidance—these are
not templates or required
approaches
▪
Utilize and customize the
tools and exercises that are
most relevant to your city’s
Compact and context
▪
Provide background on the
Compact, guidance on the
process, and ready to use
“tools” for cities that are
considering engaging as
“Round 2” Compact cities
Leverage the experiences
and tools used by cities that
completed a district-charter
Compact in December 2010
McKinsey & Company
| 2
Table of contents
Sections
What’s included
Page
1
Overview of the compact
initiative
▪ Compact overview
▪ Context, rationale, and objectives
2
What makes a good
compact
▪ Criteria and example collaboration ideas
13
3
Development I: involving
and engaging the right
participants
▪ Designating compact leads
▪ Deciding who to engage in the process
▪ Sample approaches for engaging the charter
20
4
community
4
Development II: developing
a meaningful compact
▪ Developing an approach to content development
▪ Templates and tools
26
5
Development III: work
planning
▪ What should be included in a work plan
▪ Sample work plans
43
6
Mitigating risk
▪ Planning ahead for risk
47
7
Ensuring follow-through
▪ Planning ahead for implementation
▪ Accountability process overview
49
8
Appendix
▪ Catalogue of collaboration ideas
51
McKinsey & Company
| 3
The compact initiative evolved from a desire by cities to accelerate
district-charter collaboration
Origin
Goals
The initiative
The idea for the compact
The group asked for Gates
Foundation support in
fundamentally shifting the
district-charter dynamic in their
cities. They asked for help with
individual city efforts to
As a first step in driving longterm change, the group asked
for
initiative originated at a
gathering of
superintendents and
charter leaders in February
2010. The group recognized
the need to improve
collaboration and
innovation between charter
and district schools in order
to provide all students in
their cities with a portfolio of
highly effective education
options.
▪ Transform the systems and
incentive structures that
foster unhealthy competition
between districts and charter
schools in each city
▪ Tackle the most intractable
challenges to collaboration,
including access to facilities,
equity in funding, and serving
special needs students
▪ Support for cities willing to
make specific
commitments to take
district-charter collaboration
to a deeper level
▪ Structures for holding cities
accountable for those
commitments
▪ Strong examples of
collaboration for other cities
across the country
McKinsey & Company
| 4
The compact initiative – what is it?
▪ Generate high-potential collaboration ideas to address pressing challenges,
Objective
including resource sharing:
– Access to facilities
– Equitable funding
– Serving special education, ELL, and high need students
▪ Support leaders who are committed to the hard task of affecting change
▪ Refine charters’ role in the solution: charters have as much to offer to
collaboration efforts as districts
Support
provided
▪ A draft compact with language for general commitments to provide a starting place
for each district’s compact
▪ A national convening of participating cities to discuss common challenges and
share best practices
▪ A national compact launch press event including all cities with signed compacts
▪ A small grant to participating cities to support compact commitments
Expectations
of participants
▪ Develop a compact supported and signed by both district and charter leaders
▪ Share learnings and collaboration ideas with other participating cities
▪ Take responsibility for following through on city-specific commitments (the Center
on Reinventing Public Education will track cities’ progress, developing measures of
success and reporting progress)
McKinsey & Company
| 5
The compact initiative – who should participate?
Cities participating in the compact initiative are
▪
Committed to being national leaders in tackling the most
intractable roadblocks to district-charter collaboration
▪
Committed to pushing district-charter collaboration to a
deeper level within the city
▪
Willing to take on the risk of political repercussions and
local resistance to change
▪
Asking to be held accountable for following through on
city-specific collaboration commitments
McKinsey & Company
| 6
The prevailing district-charter dynamic is often characterized by
mistrust and missed opportunities
The relationship between school districts and charter schools varies city to city, but in many cases is
characterized by competition for resources and a “zero-sum” mindset: rather than competing to outdo
each other in providing excellent educational opportunities, schools are struggling to control ideas,
funding, or facilities.
“Video surfaced last week of City
Council woman Gale Brewer saying
she'd "strangle" families that chose
to leave a local public school for a
public charter school …local elected
officials around the nation regularly take
equally anti-school-reform stances.” 1
-- Kevin
Chavous (chairman, Black
Alliance for Educational Opportunity),
Howard Fuller (former Milwaukee
superintendent )
"Charter movement people have gotten a little
skeptical about the big urge to cooperate more with
districts and to share what we do with districts…I
think the best quote I’ve ever heard about this is
attributed to Yvonne Chan, the founder of the first
conversion charter school in California, the Vaughn
21st-Century School, and she said, “I’m always asked,
‘When are we going to see ripples from your
innovation?’” and she said, “‘You can’t see ripples if
the lake is frozen.”
-- Nelson Smith, president and CEO of the National
Alliance for Public Charter Schools
1 Howard Fuller and Kevin Chavous, “’Strangling’ NYC Kids’ Futures”, New York Post, 10/27/10; Nelson Smith, Charter Schools Chief Advocate, District
Administration, 9/2009
SOURCE: Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools, New York Post
McKinsey & Company
| 7
Moreover, recent history demonstrates that this dynamic is difficult to
change
Barriers to increased collaboration
Political risk
With entrenched vocal advocates on either side of the dynamic, it can be challenging to find common
ground, particularly for elected and public officials
Competing stakeholder interests
Improvement often requires that trade-offs be made (and balanced) among a number of
stakeholders increasing the challenge of capturing the necessary of buy-in breadth
Union opposition
With multiple issues and negotiations often being addressed in parallel, it can be difficult to create
buy-in on specific district-charter collaboration
The need for legislative change
Many desired changes are outside of the control of local leaders and require significant effort
Tension and lack of trust
Skepticism and low confidence on both sides based on a history of “bad blood” can undermine even
promising collaborations
McKinsey & Company
| 8
Charters are an increasingly important part of public education in cities
across the country
Enrollment in charter schools in the U.S.
Student enrollment in Cohort 1 cities
Traditional
4,920
Minneapolis
+45%
3,399
507
% of all
public
schools
New Orleans
1999
2005
2009
0.6%
3.5%
4.9%
Charter
39%
Total
61%
78%
36,816
22%
44,403
Baltimore
90%
10% 82,866
Los Angeles
90%
10% 678,277
Denver
90%
10% 77,255
Rochester
93%
7% 36,389
Hartford
96%
4% 22,018
New York
97%
3% 999,315
Nashville
98%
2% 80,080
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education Common Core of Data (National Center for Education Statistics); NAPCS
McKinsey & Company
| 9
Examples of collaboration from across the country
▪ A joint district-charter initiative created a template for how
teachers can develop and refine detailed year-long plans.
The templates, and other materials are now available more
broadly.
–Washington D.C.
▪ 2 charter and 1 district middle school share a common
enrollment zone, and every student living within the zone is
guaranteed a spot at one of the schools. –Denver
▪ A campus with a co-located district and charter school are
piloting an active collaboration partnership. Students share
lunch and recess and joint staff meetings will be held
“But both supporters and
skeptics... agree that so
far the [district-charter]
cooperative efforts are not
widespread nor are most
of them very deep”
Education Week
November 18,
2010
throughout the year. –Los Angeles
SOURCE: Promising Educational Practices, Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools
Education Week, “Regular Public Schools Start to Mimic Charters”, Nov. 8, 2010
McKinsey & Company
| 10
Why participate? What Cohort 1 cities said
The compact initiative was useful because…
▪ The public nature of the compact and process
helped build trust and accountability
▪ The opportunity to be a national leader in a highprofile initiative motivated participants to push for
bolder changes
Putting a balanced set of commitments on
a single compact was a huge part of what
allowed us to get Board approval on
issues that all had been dealt with
independently before. Together, these
ideas will have a huge impact on all of our
kids.
– Charter Leader
▪ It provided a way to get buy-in on issues
typically dealt with independently
▪ It opened up new areas of collaboration with and
among the charter community
▪ It allowed us to articulate a unified call for
change
Being able to codify and expand
collaboration that is already happening is
important, particularly in light of leadership
transitions. Now we can build on what we
have and pursue the even bolder ideas
we have in the Compact.
– District Leader
McKinsey & Company
| 11
Table of contents
Sections
What’s included
Page
1
Overview of the compact
initiative
▪ Compact overview
▪ Context, rationale, and objectives
2
What makes a good
compact
▪ Criteria and example collaboration ideas
13
3
Development I: involving
and engaging the right
participants
▪ Designating compact leads
▪ Deciding who to engage in the process
▪ Sample approaches for engaging the charter
20
4
community
4
Development II: developing
a meaningful compact
▪ Developing an approach to content development
▪ Templates and tools
26
5
Development III: work
planning
▪ What should be included in a work plan
▪ Sample work plans
43
6
Mitigating risk
▪ Planning ahead for risk
47
7
Ensuring follow-through
▪ Planning ahead for implementation
▪ Accountability process overview
49
8
Appendix
▪ Catalogue of collaboration ideas
51
McKinsey & Company
| 12
A good compact articulates a shared district-charter vision and outlines a
set of detailed commitments that will help achieve it
An articulation of the
joint commitment to
ensure that all children
have access to highquality public schools
Vision for
the future
Specific commitments
on how the vision will
be achieved
A set of broad
commitments
common to all
compact cities
A set of cityspecific
commitments to
collaboration
McKinsey & Company
| 13
An example of how one city articulated its vision in the compact
We, the undersigned, believe that
▪ High performing schools rely on, cultivate, develop, and support highly effective school leaders and
teaching professionals
▪ High performing schools are student-centered, pursuing innovation and actively sharing
demonstrated best practices to support their dissemination and implementation at scale
▪ High performing schools empower parents by offering meaningful choices for students and
developing creative ways to engage families in the design and success of their school.
▪ High performing schools collaborate as partners in the county-wide effort to provide an excellent
education for all students and, as partners, work to share best practices between classrooms,
schools, and leaders
Therefore, collaboratively undertaking to build a system of high performing public schools
throughout the county, we, the undersigned, pledge the following on behalf of the present and
future students of Nashville-Davidson County…
-- Nashville-Davidson County Collaboration Compact
McKinsey & Company
| 14
Compacts include a set of general commitments that all cities are
expected to incorporate, in addition to city-specific commitments
Commitments common to all cities include:
2 sets of
commitments
Joint
commitments
▪
▪
Broad
1 commitments
common to all
compact cities
2
▪ Embrace responsibility for ensuring that all students
graduate from high school ready for college, work, and life
Support high-performing schools, immediately address lowperforming schools
Foster a cooperative and collaborative relationship
between district and charter schools
District
commitments
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Charter
commitments
▪ Serve all students in the city equitably in all schools,
City-specific
commitments
▪
▪
▪
Make district economies of scale available to charter schools
Advocate for equitable per-pupil funding
Promote replication of most promising school models
Protect autonomy of charter schools
Actively share best practices with all charter schools
including special needs, ELL, and high-risk populations
Ensure transparency regarding student mobility and
achievement
Work with districts to locate schools in high-need areas
Actively share best practices with district
McKinsey & Company
| 15
City-specific commitments should be bold, specific, and actionable
Criteria
Key question
▪ Will it make a
Bold
Specific and
actionable
significant difference
to students outcomes?
▪ Does it clearly
describe an action to
be taken and what we
are accountable for?
Description
▪ Has the potential to significantly improve
student outcomes and access to a
portfolio of high quality education
options. It also addressed the most
pressing issues in our city
▪ Action to be taken can be clearly
understood by all stakeholders and
constituents
▪ Actions have are separated into district,
charter and joint commitments
▪ Next steps and measures of success are
explicitly stated or easily understood in
order to ensure appropriate followthrough
McKinsey & Company
| 16
Example compact commitments II
▪ “Common approach to... admission lotteries... including common forms
and... parent information system... track outcomes of students winning
Equity
and
Access
and losing... and follow-up on lessons learned... ” –Hartford
▪ “Serve all students; measured by % of special education enrolled –
consider creation of specialized schools / schools within a school to serve
targeted high-need populations” –New Orleans
▪ “Develop and implement an equitable and transparent process for
facilities assignment that considers parent demand, and school
performance, as well as building quality where possible.” –Denver
Facilities
▪ “Continuing to co-locate and locate charter schools in underutilized
district buildings and where a charter school would provide a high-quality
option for parents” –New York
McKinsey & Company
| 17
Example compact commitments II
▪ “[Create a] workgroup to develop criteria and definitions for ‘nonperforming’ schools and use that information for authorization, renewal,
and closure decisions” –Baltimore
School-level
accountability ▪
“Establish a common high performing school indicator that provides a
clear, credible, and intelligible measure, includes multiple variables,
weights student growth highly... used to improve communication and
parent-friendly information regarding all public schools” –Nashville
▪ “Ensure equitable access to Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes (TRANS)
in a manner that is cost neutral to the district.” –Los Angeles
▪ “Offer expanded access on an opt-in basis to services such as food
Resources
(non-facilities)
service, transportation, and procurement.” –Rochester
▪ “Commit to ensuring equitable resources for charter schools… includ[ing]
... per pupil revenue, ... an equitable share of... Title funds,... bond funds, ...
and materials purchased with federal funds, and grants... ” –Denver
McKinsey & Company
| 18
Table of contents
Sections
What’s included
Page
1
Overview of the compact
initiative
▪ Compact overview
▪ Context, rationale, and objectives
2
What makes a good
compact
▪ Criteria and example collaboration ideas
13
3
Development I: involving
and engaging the right
participants
▪ Designating compact leads
▪ Deciding who to engage in the process
▪ Sample approaches for engaging the charter
20
4
community
4
Development II: developing
a meaningful compact
▪ Developing an approach to content development
▪ Templates and tools
26
5
Development III: work
planning
▪ What should be included in a work plan
▪ Sample work plans
43
6
Mitigating risk
▪ Planning ahead for risk
47
7
Ensuring follow-through
▪ Planning ahead for implementation
▪ Accountability process overview
49
8
Appendix
▪ Catalogue of collaboration ideas
51
McKinsey & Company
| 19
Approach to involving and engaging the right participants
▪
Designate a district “lead” and a charter “lead”
▪
Decide who to involve
▪
Develop an approach to engaging the charter community
▪
Decide on the right roles for participants and stakeholders
McKinsey & Company
| 20
Designate a district “lead” and a charter “lead”
District lead: main responsibilities
Charter lead: main responsibilities
▪ Be co-accountable for compact effort
▪ Be co-accountable for compact effort
deliverables and timeline
▪ Build district buy-in on the compact and
ensure that the organization supports
the final agreement
▪ Represent the district’s voice in
workshops and meetings with charters
▪ Co-lead district-charter workshops
▪ Drive agenda, content, and outcomes of
workshops
▪ Take responsibility for communication
with city stakeholders as appropriate
deliverables and timeline
▪ Coordinate communication with charter
community
▪ Build buy-in from key charter stakeholders
and ensure that the charter community
supports the final agreement
▪ Represent the charter community’s voice
in workshops and meetings with the district
▪ Co-lead district-charter workshops
▪ Drive agenda, content, and outcomes of
workshops
▪ Take responsibility for communication with
external stakeholders as appropriate
McKinsey & Company
| 21
Decide who to involve
District
Who to engage
Examples
▪ Senior leadership key to
▪ Superintendent, local school board
organization-wide support
▪ Personnel who will lead followthrough on compact commitments
▪ Relevant subject-matter experts
▪ Executive Director of Innovation and
Charter Schools, Chief of Facilities
▪ Project lead on special teacher
effectiveness initiative
▪ Representation from the charter
Charter
community
▪ Leaders of existing charter
▪ Representatives from CMOs, stand-alone
schools, conversion schools
▪ President of state charter association
organizations
▪ Relevant subject-matter experts
▪ Representatives from charter advocacy
organizations / foundations
Additional
stakeholders
▪ Other players who could help develop ▪ Union president, Mayor, local foundations,
or carry out charter commitments
local education organizations
McKinsey & Company
| 22
Develop an approach to engaging the charter community
Options for engaging charter leaders
Options for managing communication and
input
Invite everyone to the table
Leverage existing communication channels
Example: Rochester, NY has only seven
charter schools; when the district lead
convened the first compact meeting, she
invited the head of each charter school or
charter network.
Example: In Los Angeles, a charter convening
organization holds monthly meetings of
charter school representatives and sends
out weekly emails. Updates on the compact
process were shared both at meetings and
through the weekly emails.
OR
OR
Select charter representatives
Create new communication channels
Example: New Orleans has a large and highly
organized charter community. Two
representatives from the charter community
volunteered to draft the first compact with
the district lead.
Example: In Memphis, charter schools had no
tradition of group meetings or formal
communication. The first step in the
compact process for the charter lead was to
call a meeting of all charter schools to
discuss common goals.
McKinsey & Company
| 23
Decide on the right roles for participants and stakeholders: example
Stakeholder
District “lead”
Charter “lead”
Superintendent
Working
meeting
participant


Content
development



Signatory
Letter of
support
CEOs of large CMOs
















President of state
charter association


Mayor
Template to be
completed by city




President of local
teachers union
Local foundation

Role in
implementation



District facilities head
Principals of standalone charters
Feedback on
draft compact


McKinsey & Company
| 24
Table of contents
Sections
What’s included
Page
1
Overview of the compact
initiative
▪ Compact overview
▪ Context, rationale, and objectives
2
What makes a good
compact
▪ Criteria and example collaboration ideas
13
3
Development I: involving
and engaging the right
participants
▪ Designating compact leads
▪ Deciding who to engage in the process
▪ Sample approaches for engaging the charter
20
4
community
4
Development II: developing
a meaningful compact
▪ Developing an approach to content development
▪ Templates and tools
26
5
Development III: work
planning
▪ What should be included in a work plan
▪ Sample work plans
43
6
Mitigating risk
▪ Planning ahead for risk
47
7
Ensuring follow-through
▪ Planning ahead for implementation
▪ Accountability process overview
49
8
Appendix
▪ Catalogue of collaboration ideas
51
McKinsey & Company
| 25
Developing the right content
Potential approach
Generating
collaboration
ideas
Prioritizing the
right ideas
Developing the
right level of
detail
▪
▪
▪
▪
Decide on a set of goals that the compact will help you to achieve
Catalogue examples of existing collaboration
Consider examples of collaboration from other cities
Brainstorm new ideas for collaboration
▪ Consider the feasibility and the potential for impact of each idea
▪ Decide which ideas should be a priority: what mix of impact and
feasibility makes sense for your city?
▪ Develop each priority idea into a commitment to a specific initiative
▪ Consider examples of collaboration from other cities for ideas on
▪
how to make commitments bolder and more specific
Solicit feedback on commitments from local and national content
area experts
McKinsey & Company
| 26
Customizing the content development process: New Orleans example
Approach: 2-person working group writes early
draft compact, then solicits input from broader
community
▪ 1 district and 1 charter representative (a deputy
superintendent and a representative from New
Schools for New Orleans) held an early discussion
on priority ideas and created a draft compact to refine
with other participants
▪ Draft compact circulated to charters via email for
feedback
▪ Compact revised based on feedback, and circulated
back to charters to solicit support
Why the approach made sense for
New Orleans
▪ History of significant collaboration
between district and charters, in a
city that is ~70% charter school
▪ Strong understanding of and
alignment on the priority issues to
address in compact
▪ High levels of trust in “working team”
and district-charter accountability
▪ Highly organized charter community
with existing communication
channels
McKinsey & Company
| 27
Customizing the content development process: Los Angeles example
Approach: A working group follows a methodical
process of formal workshops and exercises before
drafting a compact to share more broadly
Why the approach made sense for
Los Angeles
▪ Third party interviews district and charter leaders to
▪ History of hostility and mistrust
capture ideas, set expectations, and address initial
skepticism
▪ 11-person workshop: District and charter leads make
prepared remarks to “set a new tone” for the
relationship; participants brainstorm and prioritize list
of collaboration ideas
▪ District and charter leads create first draft compact
▪ Joint district-charter working teams develop priority
ideas in more detail (e.g., actions, impact, next steps)
▪ 18-person workshop: Expanded working group
discusses and refines priority ideas; external
stakeholders participate in meeting
▪ District and charter lead create revise draft compact
between district and charters
▪ Significant, but limited, examples of
existing district-charter collaboration
▪ Large charter community including
several major CMOs
▪ Charter community highly organized
through state charter association;
compact leads could leverage
association's existing channels of
communication with charters
▪ High level of buy-in and alignment on
content/language in order to advocate
for board approval
and share with broader stakeholders for input before
soliciting final signatures
McKinsey & Company
| 28
Soliciting feedback from experts
The value of outside
expert feedback
▪ Many cities found it
useful to engage a third
party expert to review
the compact and push
on areas where the
compact could become
more impactful
▪ The best expert
feedback sessions were
proactively driven by the
city to ensure that the
experts understood the
unique context and
areas of inquiry for the
city
Relevant context to provide
to experts
Example areas for feedback
▪ History of district-charter
▪ Is the compact bold enough to
dynamics
▪ District governance model
▪ Size and history of the
charter community (and how
they are organized)
▪ Compact participants (and
who drafted the document)
▪ Level of buy-in to date
▪ Next steps for the compact
and implementation
▪ Specific barriers and
challenges
make a meaningful impact?
▪ What would make our
commitments most specific and
actionable?
▪ Are the commitments and
benefits appropriately
balanced?
▪ Are there key topic areas
missing?
▪ How should we approach
gaining additional buy-in (e.g.
from charters, school board,
stakeholders)?
▪ Are we taking on more than we
can feasibly implement?
McKinsey & Company
| 29
Tools and resources for content development (1/3)
Generating collaboration ideas
a
Tool/resource
Description
When it might be useful
Idea brainstorming
exercise
▪ Group/workshop exercise to
▪ To efficiently generate ideas
build a list (or build on an
existing list) of collaboration
ideas
and capture input from a group
of people
▪ As an early exercise to help
build cooperation/trust among
district and charter participants
b
Lists of existing
collaborations
▪ Example collaborative
practices drawn from cities
across the country
▪ Collection of promising
cooperative practices from
the Ohio Alliance for Public
Charter Schools
▪ To seed initial discussions and
idea generation exercises
▪ To provide sample ideas and
language for what specific
commitments might look like
McKinsey & Company
| 30
Tools and resources for content development (2/3)
Prioritizing the right ideas
c
Tool/resource
Description
When it might be useful
Prioritization
exercise
▪ Group/workshop exercise to
▪ To create a basis for a more
quickly and visually capture
aligned/differing perspectives
on priorities
prioritization discussion
▪ To provide group transparency
of where there is already
alignment and where there are
differences of opinion
▪ To start a conversation about
the criteria for prioritization
d
Impact / feasibility
estimate tool
▪ Individual voting template for
rating ideas based on
feasibility and impact
▪ A chart showing how to
interpret results from the
rating exercise
▪ A summary reporting format
▪ To help prioritize ideas based
on explicit criteria
▪ After aligning on definitions for
“impact” and “feasibility”
▪ Capture additional
transparency of differences in
perspective along the two
dimensions and across
participants
McKinsey & Company
| 31
Tools and resources for content development (3/3)
Developing the right level of detail
e
f
Tool/resource
Description
When it might be useful
Idea development
team worksheet
▪ A template for keeping track
▪ To record the specific people
of teams responsible for
further idea development
assigned to further develop
each idea, and share role
assignment with the group
Idea development
template
▪ A template to guide deeper
discussion of each idea and
surface areas for further
discussion
▪ As a tool to report out on smallgroup discussions of the ideas
to be included in the compact
McKinsey & Company
| 32
a
Idea generation: brainstorming exercise
Preparation:
▪ Compile a list of ideas that could be included in the compact (through
interviews, informal conversations, or brainstorming by district and
charter leads)
▪ Categorize ideas, and write ideas in each category on a flip chart (or print
on posters); and post around a room
SAMPLE TOOL
Idea list
• Idea 1
• Idea 2
• Additional idea
▪ Gather red markers, blue post-its and yellow post-its
Exercise:
▪ Participants spend 30-45 minutes circulating throughout the room
– Ensure that there are at least 1 district and charter person at each
poster
Refinements
– Signal time to “rotate” to another set of ideas every 5-10 minutes
▪ At each poster participants add to and refine ideas:
– Add new ideas in the given categories using the red markers provided
– Suggest refinements with blue Post-It Notes
– Ask questions related to the ideas using yellow Post-It Notes
Questions
▪ After each poster has been visited, an individual at each will review and
share ideas with full group
McKinsey & Company
| 33
b
Idea generation: list of collaboration ideas
Examples of district-charter collaboration
SAMPLE TOOL
Collection of promising cooperative practices
▪ List of implemented and in-process district-
“The Ohio Alliance for Public
charter collaboration ideas from across the
Charter Schools conducted a
country
nationwide search to find the
▪ Ideas grouped by category (e.g., facilities,
human capital)
▪ Ideas characterized by degree of collaboration
(e.g., minimal, moderate, deep)
▪ Captured from existing research and
interviews with district and charter leaders
most promising and innovative
cooperative practices between
charter and traditional public
schools. We sought cooperative
practices with strong
collaboration, originality,
inventiveness and the ability to
replicate.”
Detailed list: See appendix of this document
Link to website:
http://www.oapcs.org/event-calendar/nationalconference/call-for-practices
McKinsey & Company
| 34
c
Prioritizing ideas: prioritization exercise
SAMPLE TOOL
Preparation:
▪ Write the complete list of collaboration ideas brainstormed to date on flip charts, and post them on the
wall
▪ Provide each participant with five green stickers
1. Ask each participant to post 5 green stickers on flip charts to
indicate which ideas he/she is most excited about exploring
further
– Each person should use all five stickers on five different ideas
– Ask participants to choose ideas that excite them, even if they
Idea list
• Idea 1
• Idea 2
• Additional idea
may be hard to implement
2. Identify the 5-10 ideas with greatest momentum (most green
stickers)
3. Ask each participant to individually rank each of the high-momentum ideas
– Each participant rates each idea should be separately on “impact” and “feasibility”:
▫ Impact: Has the potential to measurably benefit students in the city (in terms of access or
effectiveness of their education options)
▫ Feasibility: Meaningful changes can be made within 6 months of signing the compact
4. Aggregate participants’ rankings to use as a basis for further discussion
– This can be done during a break from the working session, or in preparation for later
meetings / discussions
McKinsey & Company
| 35
Prioritizing ideas: participant worksheet
d
SAMPLE TOOL
Potential impact on students
(circle one)
Idea
Feasibility
(circle one)
A.
1
Idea
High
Med
Low
High
Med
Low
B.
2
Idea
High
Med
Low
High
Med
Low
C.
3
High
Med
Low
High
Med
Low
4
D.
High
Med
Low
High
Med
Low
E.
5
High
Med
Low
High
Med
Low
F.6
High
Med
Low
High
Med
Low
7
G.
High
Med
Low
High
Med
Low
8
H.
High
Med
Low
High
Med
Low
I.9
High
Med
Low
High
Med
Low
10
J.
High
Med
Low
High
Med
Low
McKinsey & Company
| 36
d
Prioritizing: summary scatter plot of all ideas
SAMPLE TOOL
1 Idea 1
Average assessment per idea
High
2 Idea 2
3 Idea 3
3
10
4
5
4 Idea 4
9
5 Idea 5
7
8
Impact
Medium
6 Idea 6
1
12
11 6
7 Idea 7
2
8 Idea 8
9 Idea 9
10 Idea 10
Low
Low
Medium
Feasibility
High
11 Idea 11
12 Idea 12
McKinsey & Company
| 37
Prioritizing: Evaluation of feasibility/impact estimates
High
For
discussion
Pursue
Pursue
Medium
Impact
SAMPLE TOOL
Do not
pursue
For
discussion
Pursue
Low
d
Do not
pursue
Do not
pursue
For
discussion
Low
Medium
High
Feasibility
McKinsey & Company
| 38
e
Developing the right detail: planning chart
Collaboration idea
1.
SAMPLE TOOL
Idea team
Next steps
Deadline
▪ District lead:
▪ Charter lead:
▪ Functional experts:
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
2.
3.
Idea team is
responsible for next
steps in developing the
idea content for the
compact
4.
5.
Some cities found it easier to
translate this page into a simple
excel spreadsheet
McKinsey & Company
| 39
Idea development: idea template (1/2)
f
SAMPLE TOOL
Idea #9
Develop and implement a shared principal training pipeline to recruit , train and support a new generation of principals that are prepared to
lead new and existing schools successfully in order to effectively eliminate the achievement gap.
Benefit to students (how to measure and target impact)
Students would benefit by having school principals that are trained in turning around failing schools, an/or providing opportunities to students
via the development of new schools with proven academic and operational models.
Considerations for district
Considerations for Charters
Potential benefits
Potential benefits
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Potential actions
Potential actions
▪
▪
▪
▪
Potential challenges
Potential challenges
▪
▪
▪
McKinsey & Company
| 40
Idea development: idea template (2/2)
f
SAMPLE TOOL
Idea #9 (continued)
Key Success Factors
Potential risks
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Next Steps (including content development and implementation)
Activity
Responsibility
Timing
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
McKinsey & Company
| 41
Table of contents
Sections
What’s included
Page
1
Overview of the compact
initiative
▪ Compact overview
▪ Context, rationale, and objectives
2
What makes a good
compact
▪ Criteria and example collaboration ideas
13
3
Development I: involving
and engaging the right
participants
▪ Designating compact leads
▪ Deciding who to engage in the process
▪ Sample approaches for engaging the charter
20
4
community
4
Development II: developing
a meaningful compact
▪ Developing an approach to content development
▪ Templates and tools
26
5
Development III: work
planning
▪ What should be included in a work plan
▪ Sample work plans
43
6
Mitigating risk
▪ Planning ahead for risk
47
7
Ensuring follow-through
▪ Planning ahead for implementation
▪ Accountability process overview
49
8
Appendix
▪ Catalogue of collaboration ideas
51
McKinsey & Company
| 42
What to include in your work plan
Example
Content development
phases
Workshop/ meeting
schedule
Description
▪ Make explicit when each phase of
the content development process
will occur
▪ Dates for district-charter
workshops/ meetings
Guidance
▪ Customize phases and timing to
city context
▪ Put on calendar to create urgency
and “deadlines”
▪ Decide on meeting objectives and
participants upfront
Charter convenings/
communication
▪ Work charter-specific convenings
and/or communications into the
plan
▪ Leverage existing meetings and
communications where possible
▪ Create timing that complements
the overall work plan
Compact
draft deadlines
Securing buy-in
▪ Deadlines for different iterations
▪ Most cities had the same 1-2
of the compact (e.g., first, final
draft)
people creating and revising
drafts throughout the process
▪ Timing for securing buy-in and
▪ Typically 2-4 weeks to finalize
ultimately, signatures/letters of
support
buy-in at the end of the process
▪ Helpful to build into the entire
process as well
McKinsey & Company
| 43
Example work plan from cohort 1 city
EXAMPLE #1
Activities
Deliverables
Pre-work
Sep 1-Oct 6
▪
▪
Interviews of several key participants/stakeholders
Communicate the compact process and approach
▪
▪
▪
Initial list of potential ideas for compact
Initial list of incoming hopes and concerns
Draft timeline and approach
Workshop 1
Oct 7
▪
▪
▪
Develop a comprehensive list of collaboration ideas
Prioritize ideas to develop in further detail
Identify next steps and owners
▪
Prioritized set of collaborative ideas to
pursue further
Next steps and owners for each
▪
Further develop priority ideas including
– Working through details and challenges
– Engaging subject matter experts
– Identifying goals and progress measures
Create first draft of compact document
▪
Further developed priority ideas for
discussion at Workshop 2
▪
▪
Review, discuss, and refine proposed Compact
collaboration ideas
Identify any additional ideas for potential inclusion
Identify other local supporters and assign owners to
pursue
Agree upon process for compact finalization
Agreed-upon in-depth ideas for collaboration
(including key elements, metrics, etc.) for
which language can be developed
Plan for engaging other supporters
Agreed-upon process for compact
finalization
▪
▪
Circulate drafts
Finalize language
▪
Interim work
Oct 9-Nov 4
▪
Workshop 2
Nov 5
Finalize
compact draft
Nov 6-19
Compact
signing
Nov 15-Dec 2
▪
▪
▪
▪ Sign final Compact
▪ Gather letters of support from other local supporters
▪ (partial overlap with finalization of compact draft)
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Specific compact language around proposed
areas of collaboration
Collaboration metrics of success identified
Signed Compact, Letters of Support, and
next steps for collaboration
Board approval
McKinsey & Company
| 44
Example work plan from cohort 1 city
EXAMPLE #2
Pre-Aug 13
▪
Communicate the compact and build
initial buy-in for city participation
Nov 17-19
▪
Compact draft revised and redistributed
for input
Aug 13
▪
Hold meeting with charter, district, and
stakeholder (and union) leaders to align
on compact participation and sign the
“Broad commitments common to all
compact cities” [see page 15]
Nov 22
▪
Conference call to review revised draft
and agree on changes/next steps
Nov 23-30
▪
▪
Thanksgiving
Compact draft revised and redistributed
for input
Individual meetings with participants to
review latest draft and secure support
Aug 14Nov 1
▪
Hold individual meetings and calls with
key stakeholders to develop city-specific
ideas
Nov 1-5
▪
District and charter “leads” jointly create
first draft of compact
Distribute draft to compact participants
to review and capture input
▪
Nov 8-12
Nov 16
▪
▪
Participants review draft compact and
capture input (e.g., questions, elements
believed to be most important, elements
missing, concerns,)
Hold workshop to review and discuss
draft compact, agree on changes, and
align on path forward
▪
Dec 1
▪
▪
Conference call to finalize draft and
agree on changes/next steps
Final changes/updates made
Dec 2
▪
Collect final signatures
Dec 3
▪
Hold meeting with union leader to review
draft compact and secure letter of
support
Finalize compact
▪
Note: This city had a small number of charters, allowing all to more easily and manageably participate in every meeting/call.
McKinsey & Company
This also allowed the city incorporate the buy-in process along the way, and have a quick turnaround at process conclusion
| 45
Table of contents
Sections
What’s included
Page
1
Overview of the compact
initiative
▪ Compact overview
▪ Context, rationale, and objectives
2
What makes a good
compact
▪ Criteria and example collaboration ideas
13
3
Development I: involving
and engaging the right
participants
▪ Designating compact leads
▪ Deciding who to engage in the process
▪ Sample approaches for engaging the charter
20
4
community
4
Development II: developing
a meaningful compact
▪ Developing an approach to content development
▪ Templates and tools
26
5
Development III: work
planning
▪ What should be included in a work plan
▪ Sample work plans
43
6
Mitigating risk
▪ Planning ahead for risk
47
7
Ensuring follow-through
▪ Planning ahead for implementation
▪ Accountability process overview
49
8
Appendix
▪ Catalogue of collaboration ideas
51
McKinsey & Company
| 46
Mitigating risks
Potential risk
Potential mitigation strategies
▪ Ensure that the right leaders are “at the table” during the process to help facilitate
Bureaucracy and
political delays
the political process (e.g., Mayor’s staff, senior leadership in the district)
▪ Make honest assessment of longer timing and process steps required, and build
into the process (some cities built in over 4 weeks just for buy-in
process/bureaucracy)
Union
engagement
Lack of alignment
within charter
community
▪ Discuss and incorporate known overlaps with union input/priorities
▪ Be deliberate about when and how to engage. Some cities decided to engage the
union at compact process kick-off, others felt it better to engage after creating fuller
alignment among stakeholders
▪ Secure a meaningful number/representation of charters to move forward with the
compact, while ensuring that all parties are heard and included in the discussion
▪ Create opportunities for those that are not fully aligned to continue to participate
in the process if not signing (this should be an ongoing discussion and living
document)
▪ Develop compact content and process with an eye toward a “board-ready”
Need for board
approval
compact (e.g., language, content)
▪ Create coordinated board outreach plan to advocate and build buy-in
▪ Build in commitments/ideas that can feasibly be pursued without board approval
McKinsey & Company
| 47
Table of contents
Sections
What’s included
Page
1
Overview of the compact
initiative
▪ Compact overview
▪ Context, rationale, and objectives
2
What makes a good
compact
▪ Criteria and example collaboration ideas
13
3
Development I: involving
and engaging the right
participants
▪ Designating compact leads
▪ Deciding who to engage in the process
▪ Sample approaches for engaging the charter
20
4
community
4
Development II: developing
a meaningful compact
▪ Developing an approach to content development
▪ Templates and tools
26
5
Development III: work
planning
▪ What should be included in a work plan
▪ Sample work plans
43
6
Mitigating risk
▪ Planning ahead for risk
47
7
Ensuring follow-through
▪ Planning ahead for implementation
▪ Accountability process overview
49
8
Appendix
▪ Catalogue of collaboration ideas
51
McKinsey & Company
| 48
Implementation planning ideas captured from Cohort 1
Topics
Capacity and
resources
▪ Designate a 2 person district-charter team to lead each commitment
▪ Hire a full-time project manager
▪ Create a charter school liaison to the district to help organize the
charter community around this and other efforts
Measurement and
accountability
▪ Create metrics to monitor progress on individual commitments
▪ Report publicly on implementation progress every six months
▪ Create detailed work plans with clear action item owners
▪ Look for quick wins in implementation to build momentum and positive
Risk mitigation
press about what the compact can accomplish
▪ Coordinate communication with and in the media to minimize
“gotcha” tactics
▪ Pursue additional signatures and letters to broaden support
Maintaining a
living document
▪ Hold annual meeting specifically to consider revisions and updates
that will ensure the collaboration remains relevant, timely, and effective
▪ Invite leaders that did not sign to participate in meetings to challenge
thinking and foster future buy-in
McKinsey & Company
| 49
Table of contents
Sections
What’s included
Page
1
Overview of the compact
initiative
▪ Compact overview
▪ Context, rationale, and objectives
2
What makes a good
compact
▪ Criteria and example collaboration ideas
13
3
Development I: involving
and engaging the right
participants
▪ Designating compact leads
▪ Deciding who to engage in the process
▪ Sample approaches for engaging the charter
20
4
community
4
Development II: developing
a meaningful compact
▪ Developing an approach to content development
▪ Templates and tools
26
5
Development III: work
planning
▪ What should be included in a work plan
▪ Sample work plans
43
6
Mitigating risk
▪ Planning ahead for risk
47
7
Ensuring follow-through
▪ Planning ahead for implementation
▪ Accountability process overview
49
8
Appendix
▪ Catalogue of collaboration ideas
51
McKinsey & Company
| 50
Examples of district-charter collaboration: overview
Sources
▪ Interviews with district and charter leaders
▪ National Best Cooperative Practices Between Charter and Traditional Public Schools Conference,
Sept 27-28, 2010, Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools
Levels of collaboration
▪ Minimal – Partners cooperate and make small concessions to enable each other
▪ Moderate – Partners selectively share resources and expertise to address mutual needs
▪ Deep – Partners deeply collaborate to address mutual needs
Notes and definitions
1)
* = considering, but have not yet implemented
2) Collaboration: an arrangement that is jointly undertaken or involves an exchange of benefits
3) District/charter action: an arrangement where one partner primarily offers benefits to the other
partner; these may be components of a comprehensive collaboration plan
McKinsey & Company
| 51
Governance policy
Minimal
▪
...
Moderate
▪
Collaboration – District created the Charter School Advisory Council, where top leaders from the district and charter
schools meet monthly. Council results include joint professional development for district and charter school teachers,
charter leaders supporting the district in reviewing new charter applications, and charter schools having free access
to the district’s alternative out-of-school suspension program (Hillsborough County)
▪
Collaboration* – District may implement a process to expedite renewal for high-performing charters, in exchange for
charters sharing codified best practices with the district (various) . . .
Deep
▪
...
McKinsey & Company
| 52
Resources -- facilities
Minimal
▪
District action – By law, if charters share a building where new space becomes available, they must refuse it before it
can be offered to a district school (D.C.)
▪
District action – By law, school districts are required to invite charter schools to discuss their capital construction
needs before the district submits a bond request for facilities funding; however, districts are not required to include
the charter schools’ request as part of the district’s request. (Colorado)
Moderate
▪
Collaboration – District provides the charter school a cost-effective lease and the charter provides the district with its
innovative programming for teacher professional development and arts curriculum (San Antonio)
▪
District action – District pays for the necessary capital renovations on shared facilities to ensure that buildings have
the necessary life safety renovations and are ADA compliant (Chicago)
▪
District action – By law, school districts must make its unused facilities available to locally approved charter schools
without lease or rental charges, although maintenance and other costs can be charged (Georgia). NOTE: This
applies only to locally approved charter schools.
▪
District action* – District may advocate to rationalize building safety codes for traditional public schools to reduce
district facilities costs; cost savings may fund additional facilities for charters (various)
McKinsey & Company
| 53
Resources – facilities (cont.)
Deep
▪
District action – Charters receive facilities (including many new buildings) effectively free, paying the district only
1.75% of per-pupil funding for students served; this fee supports operating services, supplies, and professional
services that the district provides to charter schools. Charters are responsible for general maintenance and operating
costs (New Orleans)
▪
District action – Districts offer charters free facilities and all maintenance services (like traditional public schools)
(Hartford)
▪
Collaboration – District offers facilities to charter schools that have been approved through an RFP process
(Minneapolis, Chicago, although in 2010, for the first time, the district did not offer buildings)
▪
Collaboration – A Synergy charter school and a district school who share a facility have deliberately moved beyond
co-location to co-operatively running the building. The schools share and jointly staff lunch and recess and hold joint
staff meetings (Los Angeles)
▪ Collaboration* – District may reach out to charters for best practices in efficient facilities development; cost savings
may fund additional facilities for charters (various)
▪
District action* – District may establish a facilities oversight board to identify available facilities, match availability to
school growth projections, and communicate facilities decisions to both district and charters (various)
▪
Collaboration* – District may encourage new district and charter school applicants that could share facilities to
submit applications to public school choice process together (Los Angeles)
McKinsey & Company
| 54
Resources – non-facilities
Minimal
▪
District action – District planned a “sustainability retreat” with top leaders of new district and charter school support
organizations to understand and address areas of similar concern, including external funding, level of school support,
and community support (New York)
Moderate
▪
District action – District provides food services, transportation and other support services to charter schools (New
Orleans, Hartford)
▪
Collaboration – Louisiana Charter Schools Organization offers its legal staff to both the district and charters (New
Orleans)
▪
District action – District provides a “circulator” bus that has multiple pick up and drop off locations for both district and
charter school students (Denver)
▪
District action – District provides charter schools with access to low-interest rate loans to support general operating
costs, delayed receivables, or growth capital needs (Lodi, CA)
Deep
▪
▪
District action – District allows charters to bid for food services at competitive rates from other providers (Denver)
District action* – District is considering policy and practice changes to enable per-pupil budgeting so that charters
receive equal per-pupil funding (various)
McKinsey & Company
| 55
Resources – access
Minimal
▪
Collaboration* – Districts and charters may develop a marketing campaign to present a unified charter-district “face”
to community (e.g., jointly authored communications about city education options) (various)
Moderate
▪
Collaboration – District superintendent commissioned a district-charter working group to address tensions over
special education policy which required charters to take on low-performing, district special education staff. Working
group made changes to district staffing procedures to give charters greater input into special education staffing
decisions for their schools (Denver)
▪
Collaboration – A charter school became an autonomous high-needs special education site, receiving district funding
for special education students but retaining flexibility of special education programming (Denver)
▪
Collaboration* – District and charter may jointly commission a study to examine outcomes for special education
students in charters vs. district schools (various)
Deep
▪
Collaboration – District and charters (with support from Get Smart Schools) are developing a data system and web
interface to unify enrollment across district and charter schools. New system will be accompanied by a marketing
campaign to inform parents about all school choices in the city (Denver)
▪
Collaboration – New Schools for New Orleans and the district jointly identify low-performing district schools and
authorize charters to take over these schools (typically retaining all students and no staff) (New Orleans)
▪
Collaboration – District “turned around” a low-performing school by inviting two charters and a traditional public
school to take on all students from the closed school. Charters maintained right to selecting students by lottery but
agreed to meet district needs by coordinating lottery with other schools in the boundary (Denver)
McKinsey & Company
| 56
Data infrastructure, access, and use
Minimal
▪
District action – District superintendent uses scores to identify high-performing charters and invites those
organizations to high-profile and key decision-making events in the district (Baltimore, New Orleans, New York City)
Moderate
▪
▪
Collaboration – All charter data is available through the district student data system (Baltimore, Denver)
▪
Charter action – Arizona Charter School Association created student growth percentiles to measure student progress
and worked in partnership with the Arizona Department of Education to post online every district and charter school’s
median growth percentile for grades four through eight (Arizona)
▪
District action* – District may share sophisticated data analysis tools (currently only available to district schools) with
charter schools (various)
▪
Collaboration* – District schools began utilizing data practice vendor in several district schools after seeing charters
benefit from improved data practices. District is considering regularly convening staff from all district and charter
schools engaged with the vendor to share insights and best practices (various)
Collaboration – Friends of Choice in Urban Schools, New Leaders for New Schools, and the Achievement Network
(with the help of the state superintendent’s office) hosted a Data Summit, bringing together charter and district
school leadership teams to review state test results (D.C.)
▪ Charter action* – High-performing charter may share its real-time, IT-enabled formative assessment tools with the
district (various)
McKinsey & Company
| 57
Data infrastructure, access, and use (cont.)
Deep
▪
Collaboration – New Schools for New Orleans performs school reviews for district and charter schools and advises
district and charter community on which schools should be closed or expanded (New Orleans)
▪
Collaboration – District and charters (including Achievement First) advocated for legislative changes and wrote an
MOU to count charter scores toward district performance (Hartford)
▪
Charter action – Achievement First shared best practices in data use with district; district replicated one element,
“Data Days” (professional development days held several times per year to adjust instruction based on interim
student achievement data) (New Haven)
▪
Collaboration – Edward W. Brook Charter School and the Clarence Edwards Middle School formed a one-year
partnership to develop formative math assessments, share best practices in analyzing data from the assessments,
and target student support based on the data analysis (Boston)
▪
Collaboration* – District and charters may co-advocate to include charter school scores in district performance
calculations, e.g., blended accountability for district and charter schools sharing a campus (various)
McKinsey & Company
| 58
Human capital solutions
Minimal
▪
Collaboration – District organized school visits between charter schools and “new schools” (district schools with
greater autonomy) to collaboratively address challenges at individual schools (Baltimore)
Moderate
▪
Collaboration – District and charters, in partnership with New Schools for New Orleans, worked together to bring
New Teacher Project and other human capital providers to the city (New Orleans)
▪
Collaboration – District and charter schools developed the Project for School Innovation (PSI), to share best
practices among educators, publish learnings, and conduct trainings (Boston)
▪
Collaboration* – District and charters may establish professional learning communities for best-practice sharing,
especially in challenging content areas (e.g., math institutes) (various)
Deep
▪
Collaboration – District, Get Smart Schools (charter organization) and Teach For America co-developed principal
training program (now in its third year), which aims to train and eventually license 10-15 principals per year for
Denver charter and performance schools (district schools with greater autonomy) (Denver)
▪
Charter action – Achievement First and district co-wrote i3 proposal for Achievement First to train 5 principals per
year for New Haven Schools; principals in training would split time between residency in high-performing
Achievement First Schools and district placements (New Haven)
McKinsey & Company
| 59
Human capital solutions (cont.)
Deep (cont.)
▪ Collaboration – Leading CMOs (Uncommon Schools, KIPP, and Achievement First ) collaborated with NYC
Chancellor Joel Klein and Hunter College to found and develop curriculum for Teacher U, a practice-based teacher
preparation program for future district and charter teachers (up to 500 teachers per year) (New York)
▪
Collaboration – District launched “RSD Pathways” to pilot aligned evaluation, professional development and career
pathways for teachers and school leaders; district and several CMOs (Firstline Schools, KIPP, ReNEW) are applying
for funding to expand the program to all schools in the city (New Orleans)
▪
Charter action – Reading specialists at a Rhode Island charter school are serving as instructional coaches, providing
in-class training to their public school colleagues as part of a program to help boost reading skills among their
students (Rhode Island)
▪
Collaboration – Stoughton and Foxborough School Districts and Foxborough Regional Charter School exchanged
professional development days; Stoughton hosted sessions on data-driven analyses and in exchange Foxborough
Charter provided trainings on curriculum mapping (Stoughton and Foxborough, MA)
▪
Charter action – Green Dot leadership academy trains several principals for district schools each year (LA)
▪
Collaboration – District and Charters are jointly creating the Rio Grande Valley Center for Teaching and Leading
Excellence to develop a permanent and sustainable capacity to recruit, select, onboard, evaluate, reward, support,
train, and retain teachers and school leaders for both LEAs, including multiple pathways to teacher and school
leadership. (IDEA and PSJA ISD, TX)
▪ Collaboration* – District and several CMOs are considering partnering to develop scalable value-added model for
teacher evaluation and compensation; district will lend databases, while CMOs will build and test value-added model
(various)
McKinsey & Company
| 60
Innovative school models, tools, and supports
Minimal
▪
Charter action – Boston Renaissance Charter Public School students and staff, in partnership with the Wang
Center’s Arts Can Teach Program, piloted an 8-week lunchtime musical/cultural experience called “Eats and Beats”
that eventually spread to several Boston school districts (Boston)
▪
District action – District expanded charter authorization guidelines to permit charters with non-traditional instructional
models (e.g., no textbooks) (LA)
▪
District action – District simulated charter innovation model by authorizing an increased number of new schools
(district schools with significant autonomy) (Baltimore)
Moderate
▪
Collaboration – The Oakland Inquiry Project engages ten Oakland school leaders from district schools and charter
schools in a sustained, facilitated inquiry project for one year; this project must focus on initiating or perfecting an
Early College model of providing access to college courses for all students. The project concludes with a published
"Field Guide" of recommendations, tips, and strategies for use by other schools and school leaders seeking to
implement similar innovative practices (Oakland)
▪
Collaboration – A program that assists students with graduating on time was initiated at a charter school and
expanded to several district schools through shared staff (a college transition counselor and a community outreach
coordinator), resources and internships (Indianapolis)
McKinsey & Company
| 61
Innovative school models, tools, and supports (cont.)
Moderate
▪
Collaboration – An elementary charter school that emphasizes second-language acquisition by immersing learners in
Spanish worked with the school district to develop a language maintenance program in the district middle school.
The district is able to gain out-of-district revenue for the program (near St. Paul, Minnesota)
▪
Collaboration – Inspired by the Harlem Children’s Zone, district and charter school principals in the same
neighborhood meet regularly and work together with community partners (D.C.)
▪
Collaboration – Charter school parents, the charter school state association, and the state education department are
working together to establish one statewide virtual school (Indiana)
▪
Charter action – Charter school is distributing its award-winning mentorship program to a district high school (Santa
Fe)
▪
Collaboration* – District and charters may hold joint sessions for district and charter teachers in schools that focus
on the same next-generation areas (e.g., STEM) to share learnings and collaboratively develop winning school
models (various)
Deep
▪
Collaboration* – District and charters create joint working committee to identify the most effective online learning
options by content area, and cross-enroll district and charter students in those courses (various)
McKinsey & Company
| 62