Cluster Planning Update and Charter Application Approval June 1, 2015 1.
-
Upload
rosalind-harrell -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Cluster Planning Update and Charter Application Approval June 1, 2015 1.
Cluster Planning: Timeline (January – May 2015)
Develop Draft Mission, Vision, & Priorities Community Meetings (Feedback on draft mission, vision, priorities, and high-level academic programs)
Identify High-level Resource Requirements (Budget and Staffing); Partnership Opportunities for SY 2015-
2016; Staffing AllocationsCommunity Meetings
Develop Draft Cluster Level Academic Program
January 30th, 2015
February/March 2015
May 2015
February/March 2015
* February 2nd, 2015: Board Meeting
Detailed Resource Requirements/Partnership
Opportunities
Full Implementation Plan
December 2015
Opportunities for Flexibility:• Discretionary Funds• Staffing Allocations• Title I/Title II
3
Cluster Planning Overview
2015 May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Community Meetings
High-level Cluster Plans Approved
Draft High-level Plans Presented• Signature Program• Mission, Vision,
Priorities• 2015-2016 Actions• FY16 Cluster Funding
High-level Plans Presented to Senior Executive Leadership Team (SELT)
Community Outreach
Proactive Community Outreach:• NPU’s• Community Groups• Neighborhood Associations
Community Surveys
Survey Communities for Feedback on High-level Plans
Detailed Cluster Plans
Approved
Detailed Plans Presented to Senior Executive Leadership Team (SELT)• FY17/18
Resource Considerations
Detailed Cluster Plan Development
Cluster Planning Team will continue to develop detailed cluster plans, to include FY17/18 resource considerations and partnership opportunities
4
FY16 FundingSchool Flexibility ($9.1 million)
• Providing flexibility and autonomy at the school level for principals to develop staffing plans and invest resources in alignment with the District’s academic standards of service
• Funds are allocated to schools based on 50.0% straight line average and 50.0% Free and Reduced Lunch Status
Cluster Flexibility ($5 million)• Providing flexibility and autonomy at the cluster level for principals to
invest resources in alignment with the District’s academic standards of service and address cluster academic programming needs and support for future signature programming.
• Funds are allocated based on enrollment
5
Draft Signature Programs
Cluster Draft Signature Program
Carver TBD
Carver Early College Early College
Douglass IB (International Baccalaureate)
Grady College and Career Prep
Jackson IB (International Baccalaureate)
Mays IB (International Baccalaureate)
North Atlanta IB (International Baccalaureate)
South Atlanta STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics)
Therrell IB (International Baccalaureate)
Washington STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics)
BEST/CSK Single Gender
6
Cluster Planning: Next StepsJune 2015• Cluster Principals will meet with an APS leadership committee (HR, C&I, Office of
the Superintendent) to review and approve the draft cluster plans and FY16 cluster funding requests, to include:
o Mission, Visiono Signature Programo 2015-2016 Plano FY16 Funding Requesto Community Engagement Strategy for developing the plan and going forward
June – August 2015• Proactive Community Outreach on cluster planning and charter system application• Community Surveys to gain feedback on high-level cluster plans
July – December 2015• Cluster Planning Teams will develop their detailed cluster plans, to include
FY17/18 resource considerations and partnership opportunities
December 2015• Detailed Plans will be presented to APS leadership committee for approval
Develop Approach
Hold Advisory Committee Meetings
Collect Stakeholder Input/Provide Info Sessions
Develop Timeline/Approach
Review Recommendation
Incorporate Strategic Planning Info
Develop Governance Framework
Develop Application
Public HearingsSelection of a Model
Phase 1Recommended Approach
Development
Phase 2 Application Development
Review Options in Detail
Phase 3 Operations
Develop Implementation Approach
Develop Waiver and Innovation Approaches
Strategic Alignment with Detailed Strategic Plan High Level Structures
To Support New Op Model
Operational Readiness Planning
Implement Application Approach
Operational Tools And Supports
StakeholderCommunication and
Engagement
Training, Coaching and Support for
New Operating Model
Approve Letter of Intent Approve Application
Engage and InformStakeholders
June-November 2014 November-June 2015 June 2015-June 2016
We are here
APS Charter System Application Update
9
APS Charter System Application Update
11
Date Activity November 2014 • Board Voted to Submit the Letter of Intent (LOI) for
Charter System
December 2014 • Submitted LOI to Georgia Department of Education with request for FY16 waivers needed for operation
January 2015 – May 2015 • Application Development
February 2015 – April 2015 • Community Meetings
January 2015 – May 2015 • Charter System Advisory Committee Monthly Meetings
May 2015 • Conduct Public Hearings
January 2015 – June 2015 • Stakeholder Engagement (develop 15-16 plan)June 2015 • Board Approval of Charter System Application/Petition
June 2015 • Submit Charter System Application/Petition to Georgia Department of Education
After Submittal • Georgia Department of Education makes approval/denial to State Board of Education
If Approved • Execution of Contract between the district and State Board of Education
2015 Charter System Public Hearing and Cluster Meetings
Participation*
Cluster Meeting Dates Time Signed-In
North Atlanta Tuesday, May 5, 2015 6:00-8:30pm 38
Mays and Therrell Wednesday May 6, 2015 6:00-8:30pm 80
Douglass, Washington,B.E.S.T. and Coretta Scott King Y.W.L.A.
Tuesday, May 7, 2015 6:00-8:30pm 118
Grady and Jackson Tuesday, May 13, 2015 6:00-8:30pm 73
Carver and South Atlanta Tuesday, May 14, 2015 6:00-8:30pm 48
Total 357
12
Application Table of Contents• The Case
• District Introduction
• Challenges and How Charter System Can Address those Challenges
• Flexibility-Driven Innovation
• School and District level Strategies to Address each of APS’s Four Challenges
• Required Performance Goals
• Local School Governance
• Transition Timeline
• Local School Governance Teams (“LSGT”) Composition
• Scope of LSGT Work and School Based Solutions
• Cluster Advisory Teams
• Governance Supports
• LSGT Training
• Questions
14
Charter System Public Hearings Feedback
Does the community understand the Charter System concepts?• Most attendees surveyed…
o understand the reason for change and APS’ challengeso understand how the LSGTs will be structured and make decisions
• Additional communication needs to take place on…o how the charter system will address APS’ challengeso how APS will be assessed during the charter term
Common Questions Asked• How will the Opportunity School District impact this process?• How will central office support this operating model?• What impact will this process have on teachers?• How will the clusters work with the new system?• How will PTA’s and Foundations coordinate with LSGTs?• How much time will the LSGT require of its members?• How can we increase parent and community engagement and involvement in this
process? How can I help? (Parent University and Support Systems) 15
Implementation Rationale
Working in Advance
Ready to go by Day 1 of Charter System
Contract
Transition of the LSC’s to LSGT’s
Implementation across all schools to
ensure equityLeveraging Charter System for
maximum impact
16
Compromises in LSGT Composition
LSGTs will start the same but will be
able to customize size
Principals will be non-voting and will work
closely with the LSGT chair and LSGT team to
nominate community staff
Instructional staff are eligible, not just Teachers
(i.e. Media specialist, instructional coaches,
SST/RTI)
LSGTs can customize structure to have students
vote on select areas (strategic plan vs. budget)
17
Stakeholder Input on LSGT Member StructureLSGT Composition9 voting members* can be increased through SBS process
Principal is a nonvoting member
3 Parents elected by parents
3 Non-Supervisory Instructional Staff elected by staff*
2 Community members recommended by the principal who will consider recommendations from the LSGT, community, and parents, and ratified by a majority of votes of the LSGT*
1 HS/MS student is a nonvoting member* can be amended to vote through SBS process
1 "Swing Seat" to be filled by Parent/Community Member depending on skills needed
Principal and LSGT Chair collaborate on agenda setting
2 year terms with a maximum of 2 terms(following initial staggered terms of 3 and 2 yrs.)
18*Denotes Changes From Draft Application and May BOE Presentation
We need future LSGT Members!
19
http://atlanta.k12.ga.us/candidatebank
Performance Goals
The state-required goals are an aggressive timeline for improvement.
•This goal looks at whether APS as a system is “beating the odds,” i.e., are APS students performing better than they would have otherwise. •Beating the Odds is a growth measure
APS System Average Growth
•This goal looks at each APS school’s Beating the Odds Measure. The goal is to have every school beat the odds, or at least reduce the number of schools not beating the odds each year.
School by School Growth
•This goal requires APS to meet/beat state average for CCRPI by year 2 and beat it each year after that. •APS is 10.5 points lower on the CCRPI than the state average from most recent year of data.
CCRPI System Improvement
20
Creation of Additional Performance Goals
Required goals focus on academic improvement only
APS’s Application focuses on
additional areas for improvement
Additional goals present more accurate picture of our district
improvement
21
College and Career Academy
Atlanta Public Schools will partner with Atlanta Technical College to develop a College and Career Academy
• The College and Career Academy will be established through the charter system application
• The Academy will enable the district to customize its educational offerings and instructional delivery to meet the needs of an ever-changing community and student body, therefore:
o improving the graduation rateo increasing student attendanceo increasing the opportunity for students to complete multiple pathwayso increasing the opportunity for students to earn industry recognizable
credentialso increasing the number of students earning advanced academic credit
through dual enrollment
• Staying true to our mission of “every student will graduate ready for college and career”
23
College and Career Academy
o Automotive Collision Repairo Carpentryo Constructiono Cosmetologyo Draftingo Early Childhood Care and
Educationo Design and Media Production
Technology
o Electronicso Health Information
Managemento Pharmacy Technologyo Plumbing/Pipe-Fitting
Technology
The College and Career Academy will have the following characteristics:
• Georgia nonprofit corporate status
• A governing Board of Directors
• A dedicated Director accountable to the Board of Directors
• Proposed initial curriculum pathways (to be expanded as needed) in the following college certificate programs:
24
Looking Forward
May• Public Hearings on
the Application• Revisions to the
Application• Community Meetings• Finalize Content for
Application based on input from stakeholders
June• Application
submitted to Board
• If Board approves, APS submits the application to the state June 30th.
July• After application
submission, plans to develop support systems for charter system implementation begin
August/September• Begin transition and
sun-setting of LSCs• Creation of an
Implementation Advisory Committee
• Provide BOE status updates
25
Post Submission TimeframeDate Action
Assuming June 30th Submission, and Fall-Winter 2015 Approval
July-Aug. 2015 Begin planning in-depth transition process for Central Office work flow to support charter system model
Aug 2015 Charter System Open Nights (to be held at each school) to inform community and drum up interest for LSGTs
Sept-Nov. 2015 Flesh out LSGT support system, trainings, manuals, set up voting system, etc.
Nov-Dec. 2015 Training for Central Office and Principals
Nov-Dec. 2016 LSGT Informational Meetings and Orientations
Jan-March 2016 LSGT Elections
March-April 2016 LSGT initial trainings
July 2016 Charter System Contract Term Officially Begins
Cluster planning will continue from present and hopefully conclude by Winter 2016.
26
Strong Students. Strong Schools. Strong Staff. Strong System
27
http://www.atlantapublicschools.us/strongschools
Thank you!
For questions or comments regarding our charter system model, contact Angela Smith
28
Should the Student Vote on the LSGT?Consider:
Benefits of the Student having a real stake
Cons of allowing Students to vote
Appropriateness for Students to vote on:
strategic plan, innovative initiatives,
school budget
Remember, LSGTs have delegated power in:
– Personnel Decisions, including a hiring recommendation for principal;
– Financial Decisions and Resource Allocations, school budget, which may include: curriculum costs, supply costs, equipment costs and maintenance and operations costs;
– Curriculum and accompanying instructional materials;– Establishment/monitoring of School Improvement Goals,
including approval of the school improvement plan and oversight of its implementation; and
– Any School Operations that are consistent with school improvement goals.
31
The Work of the LSGTDomain Required Considering
Personnel Input: Selection of Principal Input: Annual feedback on principal's performance/interaction with LSGTInput: Interview Principal
Finance & Resource Allocations
Input: Final recommendation for school budgetInput: #/type of personnel, curriculum costs, supply, equipment, maintenance, operations costs
Autonomy: Develop/manage requests for funding to support new innovative proposals.
Curriculum Input: Curriculum and accompanying instructional materials
Input/Autonomy: Align school's curriculum offerings and modes of delivery to cluster theme.
School Improvement
Autonomy: Establish/monitor achievement of school improvement goals Autonomy: Approval of school improvement plan and oversight of its implementation
Autonomy: Create strategic plan that incorporates school improvement and Title I planning.
School Operations
Input: school operations that relate to school improvement goals and/or charter system goals
Autonomy: Development of community communication strategies and creation of Parent/community involvement/engagement planInput: School system calendar and district-wide initiatives
32
Should the Students Vote?YES, Students Votes
Pros ConsNO, Students = Ex Officio
Pros Cons
Demonstrates the value of students input
Political pressure for students
Student perspective is valuable in certain areas such as, programming and student issues
Student’s voice is not fully represented
Provides check and balance for student concerns
Attendance requirements might be a challenge given student’s demands
Gives students a meaningful way to contribute without political pressure
Preserves student’s input into areas
Student may be scared to vote differently
Student not exposed to controversial school based decisions
Provides official record of student's votes/feelings on subjects
Student potentially exposed to controversial school based decisions
Students will still be able to provide input without the burden of an LSGT workload
Student involved in LSGT workload, including training for budgets, data and governance
Still get to share expertise on school through CEO role
Student Voting on LSGT
• Should Student Reps be allowed to vote on the LSGT?
• A) Yes, on all matters• B) Yes, on limited matters• C) No
Principals’ Feedback
Should student members be allowed to vote A) 0 yes on all mattersB) 9 yes on limited matters, C) 9 no but input can be given
OptionsOption 1: Form a student committee to provide feedback and
recommendations on areas where student perspective is valuable. For example, in order for an LSGT to approve a school-based solution, the student committee would have to review and vet the proposed programming and provide feedback to be included to the LSGT.
• PRO: Demonstrates that APS values student perspective• PRO: Gives students a meaningful way to contribute to
school programming• PRO: Reduces stress and time commitments otherwise
posed by full LSGT membership
OptionsOption 2: Student voting member during appropriate times
of the year only. For example, the student could serve during the school-based solution process and/or during the strategic planning process, but forego the extensive training and time commitment for the budget approval process (which would fall during spring semester--a busy time).
• PRO: Provides students with vote in meaningful areas for which they can contribute
• PRO: Limits stress and time commitment of full LSGT membership
• CON: Still requires extensive time commitment of training and meetings for student member
• CON: Student still exposed to potential lobbying pressure.
OptionsOption 3: Full voting student member. Student is a full
member of LSGT and votes on all matters that come before the LSGT.
• PRO: Provides students with elected vote and voice in all matters in front of school
• CON: Represents a significant year long time investment for student leaders chosen as LSGT student representatives
• CON: Exposes students to stressful lobbying pressure on potentially controversial school-based decisions
• CON: May experience high turnover due to student representatives unable to attend required # of meetings throughout year.