SI 70 the Broad Education Foundation 060113

8/11/2019 SI 70 the Broad Education Foundation 060113

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/si-70-the-broad-education-foundation-060113 1/16

CASE: SI-70

DATE: 09/30/04 (R EV’D 06/25/07)

Lecturer Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen and Victoria Chang prepared this case as the basis for class discussion rather

than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation. The Stanford Graduate School

of Business gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Giving 2.0 (giving2.com) in the development of this case.

Copyright © 2013 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. Publically available free cases

are distributed through ecch.com. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used

in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means –– electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording,

or otherwise –– without permission of the Stanford Graduate School of Business. Every effort has been made to

respect copyright and to contact copyright holders as appropriate. If you are a copyright holder and have concerns,

please contact the Case Writing Office at [email protected] or write to the Case Writing Office, Stanford

Graduate School of Business, Knight Management Center, 655 Knight Way, Stanford University, Stanford, CA

94305-5015.

THEBROAD EDUCATION FOUNDATION

The Broad Foundations are distinctive in a number of ways. We do not simply give. We invest, and

we stay invested. We are proactive. We do not just wait for grant applications. We seek out

opportunities to create institutions, programs, and activities that did not exist before. We act

quickly !

be it a yes or a no. Our people are bright, energetic, and entrepreneurial. We are willing

to take risks that are often outside the scope of government and other foundations. And perhaps

most fundamentally, we see ourselves as catalysts, innovators, and instigators.

! The Broad Foundations: The First 30 Years

Eli Broad, a child of immigrants from Lithuania, graduated from Detroit’s Central High Schooland later from Michigan State University. Pursuing a career in business, he cofounded Kaufmanand Broad Home Building (now known as KB Home) and founded and led SunAmerica, aleading financial services company. In addition to his business pursuits, Broad and his familyhad deep interests in the arts, science, and education, as well as in civic affairs in their adoptedhometown, Los Angeles. In order to facilitate their philanthropic contributions, Broad and his

family created “The Broad Foundations,” three organizations that worked to advance majorscientific and medical research, foster public appreciation of contemporary art by increasingaccess for audiences worldwide, and engage in major civic projects in the Los Angeles area. In1999, Broad and his wife, Edythe Broad, established the Broad Education Foundation to focuson the area of Kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) public education reform.

Although many educational reform initiatives focused on teaching, the Broads believed that public education faced challenges that needed to be addressed at the highest levels of decision-making. Thus, the foundation focused on leadership and governance, the top of the K-12



The Broad Education Foundation SI-70 p. 2

educational system.1 The family initially committed $100 million, later increasing the amount to$400 million in 2002 and to nearly $500 million by 2004. The Broad Education Foundation’smission was to “dramatically improve K-12 urban public education through better governance,management, labor relations, and competition.”2

By 2004, the foundation had been up and running for five years. Within those five years, theorganization had granted early-stage innovation grants to individual school districts, developed anational grantmaking agenda by launching programs in large urban school districts across thecountry, invested in nontraditional education initiatives, recruited and trained executives torevitalize school systems, and begun to showcase successes and share best practices nationallyamong urban school districts. Internally, the foundation’s team had grown to 15 team members.At the five-year mark, managing director Dan Katzir and chief operating officer Kevin Hallreflected on the Broad Education Foundation’s distinctive strategy, raising questions related tothe foundation’s approach to grantmaking and governance.

VISION AND VALUES

As with many others, Eli Broad was dissatisfied with the K-12 educational system in the UnitedStates. He felt that there was “no more important contribution to our nation’s future than adetermined, long-term commitment to improve public education…. Make no mistake. Publiceducation is the key civil rights issue of the 21st century.”3 Broad believed that the U.S.economy’s evolution from a manufacturing economy to an information economy hadfundamentally shifted the nature of opportunity. Service workers received $6 to $15 per hour andwere subject to the vagaries of the economy, while knowledge workers received higher incomesand more fulfilling professional opportunities. According to Broad, with this knowledge-basedeconomy, came a necessity to develop higher order skills in young people. Otherwise, he said,“We run the risk of creating an even larger gap between the middle class and the poor…. Thisgap threatens our democracy, our society, and the economic future of America. We must do

everything we can to ensure that all of our children receive an education that allows them to become the next generation of knowledge workers.”4

Broad categorized those unsatisfied with the quality of K-12 education into three groups. Thefirst group, with which he fundamentally disagreed, focused on vouchers as a potential solution.A voucher was a promise of payment for all or part of a student’s education expenses at a schoolof the student’s choice. This term was generally used for the certificates or promises that thegovernment provided for public school students to attend private schools. For several decades,economists, political scientists, educators, and policymakers had debated the merits of schoolvouchers.5

1 Neil Weinberg, “Educating Eli,” Forbes, October 6, 2003.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Proponents of school vouchers argued that vouchers liberated families and led to greater freedom of choice within

an educational system that clearly was not working. Dissenters often cited school vouchers as an attempt to bypass

the first amendment by giving taxpayer money to religious groups who ran private schools. They worried thatvouchers would undermine public schools by taking away resources and “skimming” the best students away from




The second group identified by Broad believed in competition. This group included charterschools, private schools, Edison schools, parochial schools, and opportunity scholarships. Broad believed that healthy competition from charter schools could contribute to raising the quality of public education. However, although Broad supported competition (and invested in charter

school initiatives through the foundation), he felt that these programs could not grow at the paceand scale necessary to meet children’s needs. The fact was that over the next decade, four out offive children in America would still continue to be educated in traditional public schools.

Thus, Broad was a proponent of what he labeled the third school of thought—“that we mustfocus our attention and resources on reforming and reinvigorating the public school systemitself.”

6 According to Broad, “We [the Broad Education Foundation] are willing to take the

much-needed risks, support new ideas, and showcase success wherever we find it in order tostimulate change…. I believe that a strong and competent governing body combined with atalented CEO and senior management team can make a profound difference in turning our schoolsystems from lackluster bureaucracies into high-performing public enterprises. I also believe that

teacher unions need to become a greater part of the solution.”

7

As part of this belief, thefoundation sought to work with districts that embraced the urgency to fundamentally changetheir operations.

ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNANCE

Eli Broad was the founder and CEO of the Broad Education Foundation and devoted much of his professional time to its endeavors. As one director said, “Eli reviews every single grant, approvesevery single grant, and signs every single installment of grant money. He asks a lot of hardquestions related to potential proposals. I think that his rigor, and thus the analytical rigor at theBroad Foundation in general, can help make a significant change in public education.”8

As of the summer of 2004, the foundation did not have an external board of directors but insteadrelied on outside advisors when needed. Gregory McGinity, director of policy, commented:“You might think that because Eli is very involved in the foundation, there would be lessfreedom, but in reality, we have more freedom because Eli has the discretion to do anything heand the organization desires because we don’t have a board.” Robin Kramer, senior director,added, “The fact that there is no governing board here is really interesting. This is whatimpressed me the most and made me interested in investigating the organization further. Thisdoesn’t mean, however, that we don’t ask for advice. In fact, we ask for advice often. Severaltimes in our short history, we’ve invited in some of the best thinkers in governance,management, labor relations, and competition in our field to bounce ideas off of them.”

public schools into private schools. Dissenters also believed that vouchers undermined American traditions of

universal public education.6 Weinberg, op. cit.

7 Ibid.

8 All quotations from Broad Education Foundation representatives are from interviews performed by the authors

unless otherwise cited.




Dan Katzir and Kevin Hall managed the overall foundation. Katzir was the managing director,while Hall served as the COO. A series of directors and associate directors each held a portfolioof grants and reported to Katzir and Hall (half to each), but many also had dotted line reportingto Eli Broad in certain areas. In the future, Katzir planned to take ownership of the foundation’sflagship projects, and Hall planned to focus on the foundation’s projects within Los Angeles and

a few additional projects.

In terms of organizational strategy, Hall likened the foundation to a professional services firm:“Several of us who work at the Broad Foundation have either investment banking or consulting backgrounds or both. Thus in some ways, we are moving in the direction to model theorganization like a professional services firm in that people have product specialties [areas ofsubstantive expertise], others are service providers to those product specialties, and finally wehave people who focus on partners/clients within certain cities.” The foundation’s decision toinvest staff resources in particular metro areas stemmed from the need to build relationships withdiverse stakeholders, including elected officials. Hall explained, “What drove this structure isthat we realized that grant owners were not the same things as city owners, for example. A point

person for the city would bring in resources from the Broad Foundation team as needed.”

GRANTMAKING STRATEGY

The foundation chose to support urban schools because students in urban school systems laggedheavily behind their suburban peers.9 When the Broads started the foundation, their originalthought was to focus solely on superintendents and school boards. However, according to Katzir,“At a strategic planning retreat held in 1999, a number of nontraditional superintendents said thatimproving principalship was the most important piece of work that our foundation could do because these people are the front-line managers in the battle to improve large-district schools.We took that advice very seriously and began researching the suggestion. As a result, we added principals to our portfolio….”

The foundation’s focus on school districts constituted another key element of its grantmakingstrategy. Hall explained, “I would say that in terms of management and governance, we decidedthat the district was going to be the key organizational unit of change. Thus, we decided not toworry about trying to change individual schools but instead to try to change the district. We feltthat the district was most comparable to a business unit or corporation in terms of trying to effectthat change, which would then enable individual school performance to improve.”

Following an initial series of primarily district-level innovation grants, the foundation took itsfirst steps toward the development of a national program. Several of the nation’s top educationleaders gathered for two strategic planning retreats to refine the principles and operating

objectives that would govern the foundation’s approach to public education philanthropy. Shortlythereafter, the foundation launched grantmaking activities in large urban districts across thecountry. During the 2000 retreat, team members formalized the foundation’s theory of action:

9 By fourth grade, half of city kids (versus 38 percent nationally) could not read at even a basic level, and math skills

were below the most basic level for more than two-thirds of inner-city eighth graders. Moreover, dropout rates

amongst minorities, who dominated enrollment in urban districts, could be double that of Caucasian students—oreven higher, according to Forbes (October 6, 2003).




“The Broad Foundation is an entrepreneurial, grantmaking organization that funds innovativeefforts to dramatically improve governance, management, and labor relations in the nation’slargest urban districts. The foundation believes that improvements in urban district governance,management, and labor relations set the conditions for improved student learning, and therefore,ultimately lead to higher academic achievement for all students.”

10

In 2002, the foundation convened a third strategic planning retreat. A distinguished group ofleaders in public education assembled to discuss the launch of several initiatives incubated at previous retreats. By 2004, strategic planning had become an integral part of the foundation’soverall strategy development. The staff submitted the annual plan to Eli Broad who then signedoff on the plan after discussion. In addition, the staff met monthly and quarterly to review progress on specific priorities within the strategic plan.

GRANTMAKING FOCUS

By 2004, the foundation focused on improving student achievement through several grantmakingareas, including governance, management, labor relations, charters and competition, andeducation policy (which intersected with all of the other focus areas). The foundation defined itsgrants in two ways. The first was called a “gift grant,” or a more traditional philanthropic grantof a charitable donation. The second, much larger, type of grant was called an “investment” andincluded both financial and intellectual support. The foundation’s “flagship” investments carriedthe Broad “brand name.” Flagships included the Broad Prize for Urban Education, the BroadCenter for the Management of School Systems (comprised of the Urban SuperintendentsAcademy and the Broad Residency in Urban Education), and the Broad Institute for SchoolBoards.

First, in terms of governance, the foundation planned to enlist outstanding community and business leaders to become the next generation of urban school board members; provide world-

class training to board members so that they could effectively work with district managementand community stakeholders; develop and support school boards to deepen and sustain theirfocus on policy and reform governance; and create and promote state and local policies thatfocus school boards on policy governance and student achievement.

Second, in terms of management, the foundation aimed to recruit, train, and place the nextgeneration of outstanding urban superintendents; broaden the superintendent pipeline to drawtalent from a variety of professional backgrounds; provide mentoring and support to new andexisting superintendents; and build district capacity for succession planning. In addition, thefoundation worked with urban districts to develop better central office systems, processes, andmanagers in order to free up resources to improve student achievement. Finally, the foundation

planned to recruit, select, train, and support the next generation of outstanding urban principals;improve the work environment and management training of new and existing principals; andchampion policy initiatives to support effective principal leadership.

Third, in terms of labor, the foundation aspired to develop new models of labor-managementrelations, collective bargaining, and union-district contracts; provide incentives for results;

10 Broad Foundation, “Retreat Executive Summary,” February 2000, p. 4.




identify, encourage and develop effective, progressive teachers to seek and be successful in positions of union leadership; and match the most effective educators in a district to the mostchronically underperforming schools. In 2005, the foundation planned to create a nationalleadership program for new union leaders, either as a stand-alone entity or as a partnership with auniversity.

Fourth, in terms of policy, since the foundation was a 501(c)3 organization, it was not allowed toadvocate for specific legislation. Thus, the organization focused on educating a variety ofconstituents including the public, state legislators, state regulators, school boards, administrators,teachers, and others in the educational community.

Fifth, in terms of charters and competition, the foundation planned to increase the supply ofhigh-quality charter schools and school systems; develop charter school leaders; develop andfinance sustainable efforts to provide charter school facilities, especially in Los Angeles; provideoptions to low-income parents and alleviate the facilities overcrowding in Los Angeles; andimprove the operating environment in California for high-performing charter schools.11

GRANTMAKING PROCESS AND IMPLEMENTATION

Katzir described the foundation’s grantmaking strategy and process:

We call the way we work, ‘four plus one—the four stages plus one.’ The first isscouting for great ideas. Second is developing the business plan or development,either by ourselves, through incubation, or with a district partner or national partner. We then send the business plan to Eli for a decision. The third stage isimplementation. The fourth is evaluation and assessment. There’s a new fifth areawhich we’re just building out, which is the communication and policy componentof our investments and our investment areas.

The foundation granted funds in installments, each relying on a set of deliverables or progressrelated to the grant.

Organizations within eligible districts sought funding by submitting an initial concept paper thatincluded information about the organization, project purpose, discussion of alignment with thefoundation’s core areas of focus, and an estimated budget for the period in which the funds were being requested. Initial concept papers (maximum of three pages) could be sent electronicallyand were assessed at the end of the month in which they were received. In general, thefoundation funded less than 5 percent of unsolicited inquiries. The foundation generally preferred to proactively look for grantees that fit its mission.

Marcus Castain, associate director, provided an example of the rigor involved in evaluating potential grant opportunities:

11 Showcasing Success and the LA Venture Fund were the final two grantmaking areas. Showcasing Success

included ways to communicate the various successes of the foundation’s efforts, and the LA Venture Fund

supported K-12 educational initiatives that provided exemplars of action, innovation, and excellence within thefoundation’s local Los Angeles community.




We have a grant opportunity that came in for $6 million dollars, and we pushed back and told them that we thought their partners [universities] were not the right partners to train principals, that their governance structure wasn’t the mostoptimal, etc. Just last week, they revised the proposal and sent it back to us, and it

looks very different. They are requesting a lot less money, working with different partners, as well as outsourcing some of the work. Eventually, we’ll make a biginvestment in this area, but it took a year of incubation.

McGinity agreed: “In terms of our budgets at the Broad Foundation, we have a very strong set ofgreen eyeshades. We’re very tough on our grantees in general. We make sure that every dollar isaccounted for in a budget proposal before we actually approve any grants.”

For investment grants, foundation staff had an established due diligence process that enabledthem to evaluate district leadership; district strategic priorities; current district initiatives ingovernance, management, and labor relations; specific funding proposals; the district’s capacity

to undertake the project alone and/or consider partners to co-lead the effort; and the proposal’s fitwith the greater foundation’s portfolio. Flagship areas were a unique aspect of the foundation’sstrategy. Castain commented, “We actually work closely with external partners to help build the programs into fruition. These external partners are co-owners of the project. We look to get ourhands dirty working with people who are running school systems.” Kramer elaborated: “Manyof the foundations that I have worked at don’t have feet that touch the ground. They read proposals and believe those are the truth. For us here, we think proposals are only arepresentation of what is really going on, on the ground. We roll up our sleeves and meet the people in towns and districts, and this adds a kind of reality base to the high quality bar that weinsist on.”

INVESTMENT IN ACTION: THE URBAN SUPERINTENDENTS ACADEMY

The Broad Center for the Management of School Systems was established in 2001 with themission to improve student achievement by recruiting, training, and supporting executiveleadership talent from across America to become the next generation of urban school districtleaders. The Broad Center included two programs: The Urban Superintendents Academy andThe Broad Residency in Urban Education.12

The center offered a rigorous executive leadership development program—the UrbanSuperintendents Academy—designed to prepare leaders with the critical skills needed to succeedas chief executive officers in the country’s largest urban school districts. Becca Bracy, director,described the strategy development for the program’s flagship, the Broad Center for the

Management of School Systems: “In general with flagships, we begin with idea development andresearch in order to develop a white paper on the program area we’re developing. Specifically,for the Broad Center for the Management of School Systems, the idea originally came from Eliwho had been discussing the concept with the governor of Michigan (John Engler), who also

12 The Broad Residency in Urban Education provided an entry point for young, talented leaders who were not

currently working in public education to train and prepare for senior positions in urban school districts throughoutthe country.




supported the idea. They had planned to create this center together, and thus we at the BroadFoundation worked with a representative of the governor on the initial program conception.”

Bracy continued:

We met with external people and organizations that were focusing onsuperintendent preparation and training (because at that time we had planned tofocus primarily on superintendents). We developed a plan and met with theMichigan Leadership Institute…. We then developed a budget and a business planand presented the materials to Eli. Eli approved it, and we launched the programsix months later. We actually created a separate nonprofit, a 501(c)3 called theBroad Center for the Management of School Systems with the plan to hire peopleto focus specifically on the Broad Center. But over the last two years, thefoundation staff and the Michigan Leadership Institute have led the nonprofit.

At the 2000 strategic planning retreat, the team discussed ways to find excellent candidates for

the Urban Superintendents Academy’s first cohort. After discussions related to recruitingtraditional versus nontraditional applicants, the team decided to seek the following candidates:(1) outstanding senior executives from business, government, the military, higher education, andnonprofit organizations who have successfully managed large, complex organizations, (2)dynamic, young high-achievers from nontraditional and education backgrounds, and (3)successful superintendents from non-urban communities, as well as deputy, associate, and areasuperintendents from medium and large public, private, and charter school systems.13

The first class of 25 aspiring superintendent fellows was selected from a pool of 206 and begantraining in the winter of 2002. Participants in the 10-month program retained their full-timeemployment status and attended the academy for seven extended weekends called ResidentialLearning Sessions. The academy curriculum covered topics such as planning and leadingsystems change, improving student achievement, using data for decision-making, andimplementing best practices from the private and public sectors. Between weekend sessions, participants were expected to undertake a series of rigorous individual skill-building activitiesand performance projects to build their leadership portfolios. Participants were matched with twomentors—a CEO from the private sector and an urban district superintendent—and engaged in aseries of field-based action projects designed to provide additional hands-on experience withlarge urban districts.

In early 2004, the foundation hired a CEO for the Broad Center for the Management of SchoolSystems and was in the process of transitioning more of the work related to the center to a largerBroad Center team. “We at the foundation will continue to incubate new programs and offeringsof the Broad Center, but we’ll look to the center to operate them in the future,” said Bracy.“Similarly, with the Broad Institute and the Broad Prize, we’ve come up with the concepts anddeveloped the strategies and found external partners to work with to build the programs.”

13 Broad Academy, “Join the Academy: Leaders Wanted,” http://broadacademy.org/join/leaders.php (July 25,

2006).




GRANTMAKING PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Bracy commented on the foundation’s evaluation strategy and processes: “I think we’re unusual because we constantly review our strategic priorities. We are also unique in the way in which wetrack the funding that goes out the door. We track our finances through monthly projections,

quarterly projections, and annual projections. We constantly assess how we fund and tie thesedollar amounts back to our strategic planning. Thus, if we say that a certain area is a strategic priority, we want to make sure that a certain parallel percentage of our funding is actually goingto those areas of investment.”

In 2004, the foundation was in the process of recruiting a director of research and evaluation whowould manage all research elements of the foundation’s work and provide direction andoversight for evaluation of the foundation’s portfolio of investments. Some specificresponsibilities included working with the program staff to develop and implement evaluationgoals and performance tracking systems for the investments, developing standard evaluationindicators to be used across multiple foundation grants, working with the foundation’s programstaff to develop assessment mechanisms for each grant in the portfolio, assisting grantees with program evaluation design and execution, and reporting evaluation results to Eli Broad and thefoundation’s staff to determine continued investment and possibilities of expansion/scalability.14 Hall explained, “We’re really looking to the director of research and evaluation to help us driveinvestment decisions and also to hold ourselves accountable.”

The foundation mapped performance measurement for its grantees through a model of concentriccircles with each circle outwards representing a lower level of direct impact. At the center of thecircle was student achievement. Katzir explained, “For example, a superintendent should have adirect impact on that system’s academic performance. If we’re funding a principal andrecruitment training program, those principals should be able to improve overall studentachievement.” The second circle outwards was related to behavior, policy, and systems changes,which were intermediary performance targets that set the conditions to change studentachievement. Katzir said, “Thus, for the Broad Institute for School Boards, we only train newmembers within a city for a week. We know that event can’t increase student achievement, butwe can determine whether we’ve taught them things during the week that will change the waythey focus their meeting agendas, make them less micro-management oriented, etc.” The thirdcircle included investments around policy, research, evaluation, dissemination, andcommunication. Finally, the fourth circle included the gift grants that the foundation did notformally evaluate.

Katzir provided a performance measurement example: “Because we haven’t had a research andevaluation director at the foundation, the majority of our focus to date has been on studentachievement. Thus, for principal training with the San Diego Educational LeadershipDevelopment Academy, which is our longest standing principal grant, we have an evaluationdesign that we’ve developed in-house that looks at the cohort of recruited, trained, and placed principals in San Diego’s performance in the schools and the schools’ prior performance, as wellas compared to other statistics such as the district as a whole.” For the foundation’s flagship programs, the foundation had specific outcomes measures for each of these grants. Bracy said,

14 Broad Foundation, “Job Opportunities,” www.broadfoundation.org (September 30, 2004).




“We get quarterly reports of program activities with financials, so we’re constantly monitoring performance and progress.” The foundation measured effectiveness of flagship efforts by askingfor feedback immediately after training sessions and on the skills that participants had builtduring the sessions.

The foundation began considering performance metrics issues for the Broad Center for theManagement of School Systems after completing the first Urban Superintendent Academy in late2002. At the 2002 strategic planning retreat, the team discussed ways to improve the programand potential metrics. As stated in the summary of the strategic retreat, “Participants felt that theBroad Center provides a promising start to increasing the pool of well-qualified urbansuperintendents. Given the recent completion of the first year of the program, participantssuggested the foundation wait to scale up this initiative until we can examine the track record ofalumni who are leading urban districts.”15 A detailed agenda for the retreat discussed potentialmetrics for success, such as placement rates and student performance results (versus otherdistricts with new superintendents, districts with similar demographics, state average).16

In terms of communication and knowledge-sharing measurement, Katzir felt that the foundationwas “less good than we’d like to be at capturing lessons and sharing them with the field.” Hesaid, “We’re very good at program development and improvement because we’re a very hands-on organization, and we’ve been so busy with program development lately.” Kramer felt thatcommunicating successes had the potential to become one of the foundation’s differentiatingqualities: “I think we have been good at communicating what we have learned in the past, but wehave a current lull in this area that we hope to improve upon in the upcoming years. The flagship,the Broad Prize for Urban Education, indicates that showcasing successes are a key part of ourstrategy. Our hope is that over time, people will look towards these success models and movetowards them.”

THE FUTURE

During its five years in existence, the Broad Education Foundation had made numerous grants,launched a sizable portfolio of projects, and achieved consistent growth. However, to keep pacewith the rapidly changing world of philanthropy, the organization would continually need toevaluate the advantages and disadvantages inherent in its processes. As the foundation sought toexpand its reach, its ability to effectively transition the management of its flagship investmentsand other programs to its external partners would become increasingly important. Engaging itsexternal stakeholders and maintaining clear accountability to them would also be critical, particularly when planning and executing the foundation’s ongoing evolution in the areas ofgrantmaking and governance.

ASSIGNMENT QUESTIONS

1. Discuss the benefits and costs of the Broad Education Foundation’s approach to duediligence and proposal solicitation. Propose several ways that the foundation could garnersupport for its strategy among district administrators, teachers and/or parents.

15 Broad Foundation, “Summary of Strategic Planning Retreat,” November 2002, p. 3.

16 Broad Foundation, “Strategy Retreat, Detailed Agenda,” November 2002, p. 5.




2. What potential challenges might the Broad Education Foundation face when passing directmanagement of its flagship investments to external partners, as in the case of the UrbanSuperintendents Academy? Describe a potential exit strategy for the period of transition.

3.

Assess the foundation's governance structure. How could the foundation improve itsdecision-making structure and increase its accountability to external constituencies?




Exhibit 2

Sampling of 2003 “Investment” Grants

Governance

Philadelphia School Reform Commission

In 2003, the foundation supported a retreat for members of the Philadelphia School ReformCommission. During the retreat, Commission members focused on strengthening the capacity ofthe Commission as a policy-making body and developing a powerful theory of action for change.The Commission also reviewed accountability measures used to drive student performance.

School Board Recruitment

In 2002, the foundation worked with the education foundation of the Fresno Chamber ofCommerce on a community-wide school board recruitment effort. The initiative was designed toincrease the knowledge and skill of candidates running for school board and to increase voterunderstanding of the role of school boards, including board members' responsibilities forimproving academic achievement.

National School Boards Association

The foundation is supporting the important work of the National School Boards Association,whose mission is to foster excellence and equity in public elementary and secondary educationthrough school board leadership.

Management

National School Information Partnership

The foundation is leading a groundbreaking national public-private partnership to assist states ineffectively utilizing Internet-based education data reporting and analysis to raise student

achievement. In September 2003, President George W. Bush announced the launch of thisSchool Information Partnership, a three-year, two-phase initiative spearheaded by the foundationin collaboration with the U.S. Department of Education, Standard & Poor's School EvaluationServices and the National Center for Educational Accountability. This powerful online packageof data services will offer parents, educators, policymakers and managers the ability to reviewand analyze student achievement data, district financial data (including revenue and spendinginformation), demographic and learning environment data and a unique analysis of therelationship between district spending and student achievement.

New Leaders for New Schools

New Leaders for New Schools (NLNS) is a bold effort to attract, prepare and support a new

generation of outstanding principals for our nation's urban public schools. The program designcombines an intensive summer training institute focused on management and instructionalleadership strategies and a year-long, full-time "medical style" residency with an exemplary public or charter school principal. NLNS is partnering with districts in New York City, Chicagoand Washington, D.C., and will announce two new city partnerships in February 2004. Since2001, of the 48 fellows who have completed the program, 25 have been hired as principals and19 as assistant principals.




San Diego Educational Leadership Development Academy

The foundation is supporting San Diego City Schools' partnership with the University of SanDiego to provide training for aspiring principals. The grant challenges traditional preparation programs by advocating a "medical residency model" for administrative credentialing that blendsfocused coursework with on-site apprenticeships and by drawing on the best faculty in both

education and management from universities throughout the city. Of the Academy's 39graduates, 24 are now principals and 11 vice principals. Schools led by Academy graduatessignificantly outperformed the district and other schools led by new principals in closing theincome gap on the state's proficiency test.

Labor Relations

Pay for Performance

The Denver Public School system has embarked on designing an ambitious new salary systemwhere educators are rewarded for demonstrating gains in student achievement. What began as afour-year pilot project, with full support of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association (DCTA),will end with a new system-wide salary schedule to reward high-performing teachers.

Teacher Union Reform Network

The Teacher Union Reform Network (TURN) is a national education network of 30 local teacherunions from the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers.TURN is aimed at uniting progressive urban labor leaders to restructure the nation's teacherunions so that they can become more effective partners in improving public education. Thefoundation's three-year operating grant supports TURN's efforts to rethink traditional positionsand encourage the implementation of new approaches to labor management relations.

Sharing Promising Practices for Differentiated Compensation with Union/District Teams

The foundation is supporting Edvance (a new nonprofit formed by the respected American

Productivity and Quality Center to focus its best practice, benchmarking and knowledge sharingexpertise in the education arena) to work with a select group of teacher unions/district teams thathave initiated differentiated compensation reforms. The project is designed to enable these"promising practice" teams to share their innovations, experiences and implementation strategieswith other district and union leaders interested in developing similar reforms.

Education Policy

U.S. Conference of Mayors

The foundation partnered with the U.S. Conference of Mayors and its former president, BostonMayor Tom Menino, to launch the Mayors' Initiative for Leadership in Education. The initiative

highlighted education reform leadership as a top priority for America's mayors by hosting aseries of meetings that brought together mayors, superintendents, school board members andeducation leaders to discuss best practices for mayoral involvement in urban education.

Thomas B. Fordham Institute

The foundation supported the Fordham Institute to create, publish and disseminate a three-part publication on alternative certification of principals and superintendents in all 50 states. The




publication included a survey of the current certification requirements in every state, profiles ofschool and district leaders with nontraditional backgrounds and a policy manifesto outliningideas for improving the pathways for leaders from other professional careers to move into K-12leadership roles.

Center for Education ReformThe foundation is supporting the important outreach and charter school advocacy work of theCenter for Education Reform based in Washington, D.C., which works to ensure that schools aredelivering a high-quality education for all children in grades K-12. The center is a nationalclearinghouse for research and action in matters related to school choice, accountability andgeneral education reform.

Charters and Competition

Aspire Public Schools

Under the unique partnership of experienced educator Don Shalvey and business school graduateGloria Lee, Aspire Public Schools has emerged as one of the few nonprofit charter management

organizations in the country ready to scale up operations. Using a unique "cluster" strategy ofschool development in urban areas, Aspire aims to have a catalytic impact on local schooldistricts while maximizing resources through economies of scale. Aspire currently operates 10successful charter schools serving approximately 3,000 students and has plans to ultimatelyexpand to 50 schools clustered in 10 urban areas throughout California.

Green Dot Public Schools

Green Dot Public Schools operates three high schools in the Los Angeles area: AnimoLeadership Charter High School, Animo Inglewood Charter High School and Oscar De La HoyaAnimo Charter High School. Green Dot was started in 1999 by Steve Barr to transformsecondary education in Los Angeles through the creation of a network of exceptional charter

high schools. Green Dot plans to open an additional eight to ten schools over the next four years.Green Dot's students have consistently outperformed comparable schools on California statewideachievement tests (The Broad Foundation granted Green Dot $2.8 million in 2004).

Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP)

Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) charter schools are universally recognized for their high-quality, rigorous curriculum and commitment to providing an excellent education to underservedstudents. KIPP's Fisher Fellows program is widely known as one of the most highly competitivecharter leadership programs in the country. Fisher Fellows are recruited, selected and trained to become outstanding school leaders capable of launching new KIPP schools nationwide. Thefoundation is backing KIPP's national expansion by supporting the KIPP fellowship program in

large urban districts across the country.




Showcasing Success

Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media

The foundation sponsored a series of seminars for education reporters by the Hechinger Instituteof Teachers College, Columbia University. The objective of the seminars was to deepen

journalists' knowledge about K-12 urban education and school system leadership. The inauguralBroad Seminar for Urban School Leadership focused on school board governance and was heldin San Antonio in March 2002. The second seminar, highlighting charter schools, competitionand choice, took place in Los Angeles in April 2003.

PBS "To the Contrary"

The foundation is sponsoring nine, 30-minute PBS news segments on education reform. Thesegments air on the acclaimed television program "To the Contrary", hosted by award-winning journalist Bonnie Erbe. The segments highlight risk-takers in the areas of governance,management, labor relations and education entrepreneurship.

The Education Trust

The Education Trust's 2003 national conference focused on showcasing schools and districts thatare closing achievement gaps in student performance. The foundation supported the EducationTrust to bring in teams from the 2002 and 2003 Broad Prize for Urban Education winner andfinalist districts to share their best practices at the conference. The foundation also supported thefirst annual Education Trust-West Conference, which was held in San Diego on February 22-24,2004 and featured presentations from 2003 Broad Prize winner Long Beach Unified SchoolDistrict and 2003 Broad Prize finalist Garden Grove Unified School District.

Source: Information provided by the Broad Education Foundation.

SI 70 the Broad Education Foundation 060113

Documents

Transcript of SI 70 the Broad Education Foundation 060113