Educator Autonomy Meeting Feedback April 7, 2014 1. Circle how helpful you found today’s panel presentation in deepening your understanding of how autonomy is

being implemented in Massachusetts?

(1 = Not effective at all --> 5 = Extremely effective) 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5 = 4.5 average

What about the format worked?

­ The different perspectives of autonomy (school, district, state).

­ Hearing from each guest and having a chance to ask questions.

­ Having the open dialogue with people who are actually ‘doing’ the work.

­ Open dialogue.

­ Liked having school, district, and state presenters.

­ Letting the guests talk and be truthful.

­ The chance to ask questions with ample time for discussion.

­ Presentation followed by lengthy Q & A was excellent. Very well done.

What could be improved?

­ Data on which districts worked well with which models.

­ More time!

­ Having the documents ahead of the meeting would have allowed more time to formulate questions.

­ Follow-up. Could this group provide feedback before our draft leaves the group?

­ More specific examples of difference between what autonomy schools in Massachusetts are doing compared

to what we are doing in RI now.

­ Have all members present.

­ Having some written material to prepare us for the discussion and the three points of view that were

discussed.

2. Identify, (by placing your rating on the line) how helpful you found each presenter’s insights on aspects of

autonomy that hold potential for developing recommendations on increasing autonomy in Rhode Island?

(1 = Not effective at all --> 5 = Extremely effective)

State Level: Innovation Schools (Bridget Rodriguez) 3, 5, 3, 4, 4, 5, 3, 4, 4

District Level: Boston Public Schools (Linda Nathan) 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5

School Level: Mission Hill School (Ayla Gavins) 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 3, 4, 5

3. Write down in a concise statement what you found in today’s panel presentation that holds the greatest

potential for autonomy in Rhode Island?

­ There needs to be trust between schools, districts, and states. Too often, we block each other’s ideas and raise

new barriers.

­ I think one recommendation would be for the state to work with teacher’s union on legislation like the

Innovation Schools. Also, or alternatively, we could develop a playbook for superintendents to use the

authority they already have.

­ The most insightful aspect is to be willing to trust in the educators to know the needs and methods necessary

to improve and progress onward and upward.

­ We have an opportunity to effect change but it must be done in a collaborative and thoughtful way.

­ Encouragement in collaborating for innovation and autonomy. Culture of ‘we’.

­ Resource and leadership training are paramount for trustful autonomy.

­ The fact that autonomy should be regarded as a best practice that should be a characteristic of all schools –

not something that should be handed down bit by bit, by a district or a state.

­ Small state – autonomous governance model with statewide goal increasing K-20 completion.

­ Focus on trust, collaboration, and values as the foundation for meaningful and exciting autonomy.