BMG Report All4Ed SPS StratPlan Grant52309 11-2-12

7/30/2019 BMG Report All4Ed SPS StratPlan Grant52309 11-2-12

1/27

Report to the

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation on Grant #52309:

Support for Seattle Public Schools Strategic Plan1

I. Executive Summary

Project ScopeIn 2008, the Seattle School Board approved a 5-year strategic plan for 2008-2013 calledExcellence forAll (EFA). The overarching objective of the plan, now in its fifth year, is to dramatically transformSPS into a system that provides every student with a high quality education one that prepares themfor higher education, family-wage jobs and a productive community life. The plan includes specificacademic goals to be reached by the end of the 2012-13 school year.2 The work to achieve these goalswas funded by several public and private sources. The most significant of these investments werefrom the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and the Broad Foundation. The BMGF awarded

this grant of $6,959,4303

College Readiness (Rigor)

to the Alliance for Education in late 2008. The Alliance subgranted themajority of the grant ($6,247,680) to Seattle Public Schools (SPS) to support the first three years ofEFA implementation. The four strands of activities conducted under the subgrant are:

Data & Assessments Performance Management Communications

The BMGF grant also includes support for two parallel strands of activities undertaken directly by theAlliance budgeted at $579,782:

School Board Leadership Development Community Engagement activities to increase public participation in local schools by families

and other stakeholders.

The Alliance budgeted the remaining 2% of the grant to recover some of the costs of grant/subgrantadministration.4

The grant was originally scheduled to end August 31, 2011. However, the Alliance and SPS asked theFoundation to extend the project through August 31, 2012, with certain no-cost budget amendments.The Foundation approved this request in July, 2011. Pursuant to anotherlimited extension request last

summer, two limited pieces of work will continue until August 31, 2013.

5

1This report follows BMGF Final Report Guidelines:

This report followsBMGFs Final Report Guidelines and covers the 42 month period ending August 31, 2012.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/grantseeker/Documents/USP_Final_Report_Guidelines.pdf 2These goals are identified prominently in the annualDistrict Scorecard.3 The grant amount includes two supplements to the original award.4 Grant/subgrant management costs included project oversight, several budget amendments, monthly subgrant invoice processing, report

preparation and other necessary functions. The grant was not charged for any overhead (i.e., rent, utilit ies, IT support, equipment, etc.).5 The limited extension approved on July 25, 2012, authorizes $60,000 of the 8/31/12 underspend of $142,000 to be used for support forExecutive Directors and forMAP training for teachers.
http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?pageid=192404&sessionid=e84ae72bc116cbdc3b85c1e5e42f47ef&thttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?pageid=192404&sessionid=e84ae72bc116cbdc3b85c1e5e42f47ef&thttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?pageid=192404&sessionid=e84ae72bc116cbdc3b85c1e5e42f47ef&thttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?pageid=192404&sessionid=e84ae72bc116cbdc3b85c1e5e42f47ef&thttp://www.gatesfoundation.org/grantseeker/Documents/USP_Final_Report_Guidelines.pdfhttp://www.gatesfoundation.org/grantseeker/Documents/USP_Final_Report_Guidelines.pdfhttp://www.gatesfoundation.org/grantseeker/Documents/USP_Final_Report_Guidelines.pdfhttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404fhttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404fhttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404fhttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404fhttp://www.gatesfoundation.org/grantseeker/Documents/USP_Final_Report_Guidelines.pdfhttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?pageid=192404&sessionid=e84ae72bc116cbdc3b85c1e5e42f47ef&thttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?pageid=192404&sessionid=e84ae72bc116cbdc3b85c1e5e42f47ef&t


2/27

Excellence for All Report, Grant # 52309, Alliance for Education and Seattle Public Schools, Nov 2012 Page 2 of 27

Summary of SPS AccomplishmentsThe 2008-13 strategic plan has one more year of implementation. With four years completed, there isprogress toward all goals. A few highlights on the plus side:

The overall 4-year high school graduation rate has climbed 11 points since 2008 to 73.5%.

The percentage of SPS students achieving proficiency as measured by WashingtonsMeasuresof Student Progress (MSP) and theHigh School Proficiency Exam (HSPE) has increased inevery grade and subject, and for all races and incomes.6

o There has been particularly strong growth in the pass rate in the MSP Science test.o SPS performance remains above the state average in nearly all subjects and grades.

There is evidence that a performance-driven, student-centered culture is emerging in a numberof schools in the district.

Yet progress is uneven and there is still much work to do to achieve the original goals.

The growth in the graduation rate of low income and students of color lags that of the

comparison groups and wide gaps remain. The goals for MSP proficiency are unlikely to be met in nearly all subjects. Data-IQ and performance management practices are not emerging consistently across the

system.

Summary of Alliance AccomplishmentsAccomplishments in the School Board Leadership Developmentwork include:

Role clarification as evidenced in the adoption of a governance structure that honors thecomplementary work of the management and clarifies the boards role in oversight.

A new streamlined process for policy development and review. A cost-neutral restructure that provides the members with strategic counsel and administrative

support.

Accomplishments in the Alliances Community Engagement(CE) work include:

Development of relationships with diverse communities and organizations Greater engagement of diverse communities by SPS leadership Leveraging of the new relationships for engagement on other initiatives such as the advocacy

work of the Our Schools Coalition (OSC

Internal and External Changes Affecting ImplementationThe four years of this grant have been marked by numerous changes impacting all strands of work.

These challenges include unusually high turnover in district governance, leadership and cabinet-levelpositions, and severe revenue shortfalls. See section VIII of this report for details.

6 Washingtons annual state-wide assessment of student learning (formerly the WASL) includes theMeasures of Student Progress for3rd to 8th grades, and theHigh School Proficiency Exam. They are administered by the state Office of Superintendent of PublicInstruction. http://www.k12.wa.us/assessment/StateTesting/default.aspx . Scores are athttp://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/summary.aspx?year=2011-12 .
http://www.k12.wa.us/assessment/StateTesting/default.aspxhttp://www.k12.wa.us/assessment/StateTesting/default.aspxhttp://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/summary.aspx?year=2011-12http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/summary.aspx?year=2011-12http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/summary.aspx?year=2011-12http://www.k12.wa.us/assessment/StateTesting/default.aspx


3/27


Despite the challenges, much of the work will continue into and beyond the fifth year.Continuing the Work

The Philanthropic Partnership for Public Education (in which BMGF is a key participant) hasrecently decided to support the development of a refreshed strategic plan with extended goalsto 2016. See partXI, Sustainability.

School board development work is continuing through a recent grant from the Boeing

Company. Community engagement is a core activity of the Alliance and will continue to be reflected in all

programs and mission-related activities.7

The BMGF form Appendix A has been completed to reflect the seven strands of work by SPS andthe Alliance under this grant (separately attached).

II. Progress on Outcomes and Milestones (Appendix A)

SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

III. Implementation Successes

SPS released theDistrict Scorecardfor 2011-12 at the State of the Districtevent8

on November 1,2012. The scorecard reports progress made toward 2013 strategic plan goals. On the plus side:

There have been double digit increases in the MSP pass rate in Math for:o Free/Reduced Lunch students (increasing 16 percentage points to a pass rate of 51%);o 4th graders (increasing 11 points to 67% pass rate)o 7th graders (increasing 14 points to 67% pass rate)

The percentage of students graduating from high school in four years increased to 73.5%, animprovement of 11 percentage points since 2008.

The percentage of high school students taking college-level course (AP or IB) increased 14points to 65%.

7 See Appendix B, a one-page description of the Alliances mission and programs.8 The State of the Districtevent was covered by the Seattle Times:http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019578184_banda02m.html
http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404fhttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404fhttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404fhttp://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019578184_banda02m.htmlhttp://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019578184_banda02m.htmlhttp://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019578184_banda02m.htmlhttp://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019578184_banda02m.htmlhttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404f


4/27


On the districts Performance Segmentation Framework,9

o The combined percentage of Level 4 and 5 schools increased from 31% of all schools in2009 to 48% in 2012.

nearly half the schools are now in thetwo highest levels:

o Meanwhile, the combined percentage of Level 1 and 2 schools decreased from 41% ofall schools to just 15%.

Though graduation rates of low income and students of color are not reflected on theDistrictScorecardand were not specifically established as a goal in this grant, the SPS Research Departmentprovided the Alliance with this data. While the graduation rate of each subgroup has increased, therates of increase vary widely, and overall there are still wide gaps between white students and studentsof color as reflected in the table below.

Disaggregated 4-year

Graduation Rates 2008 and 2012Subgroup 2008 2012 Point Change

American Indian 43.5% 62.3% +18.8

Asian/Pac. Islander 69.1% 75.7 +6.6

Black/Afr. American 48.3% 60.3% +12.1

Hispanic/Latino 46.1% 60.4% +7.3

White 71.7% 84.4% +12.7

Multiracial Not tracked 82.5% N/A

Free/Reduced Lunch 49.6% 63.9% 14.3%

TOTAL 62.3% 73.6% +11.3

9 Appendix C explains the framework and lists each schools performance levels in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

20% 16%8%

7%

21%17%

12%8%

28%33%

36%40%

16% 20%

20% 18%

15% 15%24% 27%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Segmentation Levels by Year

Level 5

Level 4

Level 3

Level 2

Level 1
http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404fhttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404fhttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404fhttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404fhttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404fhttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404f


5/27


The line graph below shows graduation rate trends from 2007 through 2012:

The BMGF grant supported several accomplishments within the various strands of the work.

College Readiness (Rigor)

The district now has common content, standards and expectations for all core academic areas.All comprehensive high schools use the same course descriptions and the same courseobjectives for the English/Language Arts, Social Studies, Math and Science.

Teachers of core courses share instructional resources, including newly aligned curriculummaps and lesson plans. These documents are stored on a shared network drive with web pages

dedicated to each high school content area. Additionally, in October 2012, SPS hosted the firstlanguage arts and social studies teacher-led conference. Teachers from high schools across thedistrict presented units and shared student work that grew out of the alignment project.

The district implemented a web-based career and college planning platform. The adoption ofConnectEDUfor students in grades 6-12 provides equal access to high quality career andcollege exploration tools and enhances communication, collaboration, research, planning andtracking of students high school and post-secondary progress.

Data & Assessments

Formative Assessment SystemThe district selected theMeasures of Academic Progress(MAP)10

10

computer-adaptive test as itsformative assessment system in reading and math for grades K-12. MAP was piloted during the2008-09 school year, and implemented district-wide during 2009-10 and after. MAP is typicallyadministered three times each year (fall, winter, spring).

MAPtests adapt to the level of a childs learning, so each student has the opportunity to succeed and maintain a positive attitude.MAP is aligned to Washington State standards and is used in 131 districts throughout the state.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

White

Hispanic/ Latino

Black/Afr. American

Asian/Pac. Islander

American Indian

Multi-Racial

Multi-racial has been tracked

only since 2011.
http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?sessionid=a098d3c2314bc05f860a3b238bf7dec4&pageid=219359&sessionid=&sessionid=a098d3c2314bc05f860a3b238bf7dec4http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?sessionid=a098d3c2314bc05f860a3b238bf7dec4&pageid=219359&sessionid=&sessionid=a098d3c2314bc05f860a3b238bf7dec4http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?sessionid=a098d3c2314bc05f860a3b238bf7dec4&pageid=219359&sessionid=&sessionid=a098d3c2314bc05f860a3b238bf7dec4http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/research,%20evaluation%20and%20assessment/MAP/MAPbasics.pdf?sessionid=290ac1b3844480a7ff7289add34e5b77http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/research,%20evaluation%20and%20assessment/MAP/MAPbasics.pdf?sessionid=290ac1b3844480a7ff7289add34e5b77http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/research,%20evaluation%20and%20assessment/MAP/MAPbasics.pdf?sessionid=290ac1b3844480a7ff7289add34e5b77http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/research,%20evaluation%20and%20assessment/MAP/MAPbasics.pdf?sessionid=290ac1b3844480a7ff7289add34e5b77http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?sessionid=a098d3c2314bc05f860a3b238bf7dec4&pageid=219359&sessionid=&sessionid=a098d3c2314bc05f860a3b238bf7dec4


6/27


Results are used for a wide variety of purposes including goal-setting, screening students forinterventions and accelerated learning, diagnosing reading and math skills (using detailedperformance stand data), mid-year progress monitoring (at the classroom, school, and districtlevels), and summative analysis and evaluation of programs.

The implementation of a common assessment benchmarking tool has reoriented instructionalactivities at most schools around continuous progress monitoring and data-driven instruction

with a focus on growth in addition to absolute achievement. Because of this reorientation, educators across the district have become increasingly

sophisticated about different types of assessments and their purposes.

The district is piloting a new battery of assessments in 2012-13. The purpose is not to replace MAP,but to broaden the assessment toolkit in order to develop a next generation system of assessmentsthat include screeners and diagnostic tools, interim assessments aligned to grade level standards, andprogress monitoring tools that are specific to interventions.

Academic Data WarehouseThe BMGF grant significantly contributed to a major IT infrastructure improvement: replacing

numerous data systems that were obsolete, not user friendly and not integrated (i.e., they did nottalk to each other). The objective was to have a tool accessible to principals, teachers and COadministrators that could generate real-time information on which to base sound, data-driveninterventions related to student performance. The result of hundreds of hours of technicaldevelopment is theAcademic Data Warehouse (ADW). The ADW is a container and reportgenerator for several types of data including student enrollment, attendance, MAP results,coursework and more. Principals and staff use the ADW to generate reports disaggregated byethnicity, FRL, special education and other user-selected criteria to pinpoint problem performanceareas, and then work with instructional specialists to develop targeted interventions. Through theADW, teachers can view test results within a week of test administration. Data coaches, initiallysupported through the subgrant, were critical in supporting school leaders andteachers as they

learned to use the system to analyze student data and strategize interventions.

11

Given the ongoingimpact of the position, the district is continuing to fund a full-time Data Coach.

Performance ManagementOne of the ongoing impacts of this grant is the continuing emergence of a data-driven culture at thedistrict, albeit not at the same rate in all corners. Among other things, the districts performancemanagement model provides differentiated support to schools based on needs and success, and hasinstitutionalized ongoing reviews of central office support. A core principle of the model isaccountability. Toward that end, SPS developed vehicles that inform parents and the community atlarge about progress toward strategic plan and school improvement goals.

TheDistrict Scorecardreports:o The districts progress toward strategic plan goalso Student performance as a whole across the system from test scores to graduation rates;o Operational performance in areas such as facilities, transportation and family

satisfaction

School Reports12

11 The former Director of the Research Department supported data IQ in the schools by personally providing pivot table training.

report theprogress that each school is making toward its school-specific goals

12 The menu for selecting reports of each school is on the SPS Website atbit.ly/school_reports
http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404fhttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404fhttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404fhttp://bit.ly/school_reportshttp://bit.ly/school_reportshttp://bit.ly/school_reportshttp://bit.ly/school_reportshttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404f


7/27


CommunicationsDespite multiple changes in senior leadership and Communications department personnel, newsystems were developed and a foundation for sustaining them is in place. The work was performedconsistent with the goals of accountability, transparency, consistency and inclusiveness.

To encourage parents involvement in their childrens educational performance, student scoresare now uploaded toThe Source, a web-based resource where families may register and viewacademic achievement information on a weekly basis.

A principal appointment communications process was developed with template letters and aform for Human Resources; this made external communications processes run smoothly and issustainable long-term.

Video recording equipment that is easy to use provided the opportunity to tell the story of SPSvia videos. Example: The department developed a video that showcases previous facilitieswork in advance of key upcoming BEX IV capital levy. Video showcased new Supt. JosBanda, PTA president Lauren McGuire, two principals and a teacher.13

An external communications professional was engaged to develop a report highlighting

individual school successes, including how they used data to inform academic decisions(August 2011).

The grant improved family engagement at the October 2011 Family Symposium, e.g., itenabled the provision of translators for non-English speaking families, a practice maintained insubsequent symposia.

The department engaged an external communications professional to develop the 2011 State ofthe Districtmaterials, including a PowerPoint presentation show to the community (will usesame template and process for 2012 and future State of the District events).

Funds were used to maintain production and distribution of the SPS wall calendar and familyguide. Pursuant to a change in policy that allows advertising, SPS incorporated communitysponsors to fund this valuable resource including distribution to all SPS families and staff at no

cost to the district.

Accomplishments in the School Board Development work include:ALLIANCE FOR EDUCATION

Governance: Through work with Don McAdams from the Center for Reform of SchoolSystems, board members agreed to and adopted a governance structure that honors thecomplementary work of the management decisions of district staff with the board membersoversight responsibilities.

Policy Audit and Development of a Policy Process: After a third party review of district

policies, the board removed outdated policy, collapsed duplicative policies and developed a listof policies to be created in order of priority. 14

13 The video can be viewed at

There was also a restructuring of the PolicyBooks based upon the structure advocated by the Washington State School DirectorsAssociation (WSSDA). In addition, the board and staff, in partnership with the Alliance,created a multi-tiered policy development process that is being implemented across the district.

http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?sessionid=&pageid=222698 14 The Alliance contracted with a doctoral student in the UW Educational Leadership and Policy Studies (EDLPS) program to reviewdistrict policies to identify conflicts, redundancies, omissions or other issues. After her review, she made make recommendations forremoving or consolidating policy, as well as identifying new ones based on current need.
http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?pageid=206407http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?pageid=206407http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?pageid=206407http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?sessionid=&pageid=222698http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?sessionid=&pageid=222698http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?sessionid=&pageid=222698http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?sessionid=&pageid=222698http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?pageid=206407


8/27


Likely the most important aspect of this accomplishment is the recognition on the part of mostboard members that policy is a primary responsibility.

Office Restructuring:15

Conference Support and Learning Opportunities: The Alliance funded board membersparticipation in conferences including the Council for Great City Schools in Portland, Oregonin October 2009. At this conference, the Alliance hosted an informal dinner for 20 boardmembers from similar urban districts, providing board members with the rare opportunity forpeer-to-peer learning. We were contacted by board members from all four school districtssharing their appreciation for the opportunity for informal learning from peers. The Alliancealso supported conference participation for the School Board Manager.

When this work began there were two staff positions providingsupport (primarily clerical) for seven board members. In the spring of 2010, the office wasrestructured into a position of Board Manager supported by a single administrative stafferproviding strategic support to board members. Both positions were posted and filled with

effective and experienced staff.

The most significant accomplishment of the Alliances Community Engagement(CE) work was thedevelopment of new relationships across diverse communities.Prior to this grant, the Alliance did not

have strong relationships across the diverse communities that make up Seattles population. Due to thisoutreach program, there remain today strong relationships with organizations such as El Centro de laRaza (with the Executive Director serving on the Alliance Board of Directors), Somali CommunityServices and others. These activities enriched our advocacy work as well by bringing a diverse crosssection of representatives into the Our Schools Coalition (OSC), a collaborative of organizationscommitted to driving systemic change in teacher quality. The relationships built in communities ofcolor were instrumental in engaging a diverse cross section in the advocacy work of OSC. It wasthrough this collaborative that the collective bargaining agreement of 2010 included progressivechanges and is ahead of many of our peer districts across the nation. It was noted at the time by theSuperintendent, Maria Goodloe-Johnson, that these changes would not have been possible without theexternal support and pressure that was created through the Our Schools Coalition.

15 In 2010, another graduate student in the EDLPS program did research on six urban districts (Atlanta, Minneapolis, San Francisco,Portland, Spokane and Washington). The results were instrumental in restructuring the school board office.


9/27


IV.Unmet Outcomes andChallenges to Implementation

While there have been gains in performance in all subjects and grades as measured by the MSP, noneof the targets established in the strategic plan are likely to be reached by the end of the 2012-13 schoolyear. In some cases, there are double-digit gaps between 2012 actual and the 2013 targets. The 2012District Scorecardreleased on November 1 tells the story:

Strategic PlanMilestone Measure Baseline2007-08 2011-12Actual 2013Target

Growth

from2007-08

Actual 2012

vs. 2013Target

district-wideGoals

Free/Reduced Lunch (FRL) students proficienton the state reading test

16 56% 58% 83% 2% -25%

FRL students proficient on the state math test 35% 51% 69% 16% -19%Percent of students with fewer than 10 absences 60% 67% 80% 7% -13%EL Learners who met typical growth in reading N/A 46% 80% N/A -34%

Elementarystudents

3rd graders proficient on state reading test 73% 74% 88% 1% -14%3rd graders exceeding standard on reading test 40% 40% 50% 0% -10%4th graders proficient on the state math test 56% 67% 80% 11% -13%4th graders exceeding standard on math test 35% 38% 50% 3% -12%

7th graders readyfor Algebra in 8th

grade

6th graders passing all classes 83% 88% 90% 5% -2%7th graders proficient on the state math test 53% 67% 80% 14% -13%7th graders exceeding standard on math test 29% 39% 50% 10% -11%

9th gradersready for HS

First-time 9th graders earning sufficient credits 82% 88% 90% 6% -3%Repeat 9th graders earning sufficient credits 48% 34% 75% -14% -41%

9th & 10thgraders passing

state tests

10th graders proficient on state reading test 81% 79% 95% -2% -16%9th & 10th graders proficient on state math test* N/A 65% 82% N/A -17%10th graders proficient on state writing test 86% 86% 95% 0% -10%9th & 10th graders proficient on science test N/A 60% 80% N/A -20%

Students readyfor co llege and

work

Students graduating in 4 years or fewer 62% 74% 80% 12% -6%Students graduating in 6 years or fewer 68% 77% 85% 9% -8%Graduates prepared for a 4-year college 61% 60% 80% -1% -20%Graduates enrolling in higher ed within 1 year 61% 67% 80% 6% -13%Graduates taking college-level course (AP/ IB) 51% 65% 80% 14% -15%Of graduates taking college-level test, % passing 67% 64% 75% -3% -11%

Included in the Superintendents presentation17

were some grim achievement gap data, including the42 point difference between Math MSP pass rates of white and black students.

16 Tests refer to OSPIsMeasures of Student Progress andHigh School Proficiency Examhttp://www.k12.wa.us/assessment/StateTesting/default.aspx.17 The Superintendents presentation is posted here:State of the District Presentation.

76.2%

79.4%77.8%

80.6%82.2%

66.0%67.5%

71.8% 72.3%

77.1%

58.9%61.7% 62.7%

65.0%

68.1%

38.0%

40.7%

44.3%

47.5%49.9%

48.4% 47.7%

44.3%

40.4%38.9%

30.2%32.0% 32.5%

34.5%

38.3%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12

PercentMeetingStandard

School Year

3rd to 8th Grade Mathematics

White

Asian/Pacific Islander

District Average

Hispanic/Latino

Native American

African American
http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404fhttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404fhttp://www.k12.wa.us/assessment/StateTesting/default.aspxhttp://www.k12.wa.us/assessment/StateTesting/default.aspxhttp://www.k12.wa.us/assessment/StateTesting/default.aspxhttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/State_of_the_District_PowerPoint_2012.pdf?sessionid=0507b5452ffcef1f028ae0b49692ef11http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/State_of_the_District_PowerPoint_2012.pdf?sessionid=0507b5452ffcef1f028ae0b49692ef11http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/State_of_the_District_PowerPoint_2012.pdf?sessionid=0507b5452ffcef1f028ae0b49692ef11http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/State_of_the_District_PowerPoint_2012.pdf?sessionid=0507b5452ffcef1f028ae0b49692ef11http://www.k12.wa.us/assessment/StateTesting/default.aspxhttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404f


10/27


CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED BY SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLSThe challenges to SPSs project implementation fall into three broad categories: insufficientpreparation for a higher degree ofstakeholder resistance than anticipated; leadership crises coupledwith extremely high turnover at every level; and the most serious economic recession in decades thatcontributed to dramatic revenue shortfalls that are impacting the districts capacity and ability to

sustain the work.

Stakeholder ResistanceInternal and external negative perceptions about curriculum alignment to standards were consistentchallenges throughout the project. Many teachers and community members voiced opposition. Inaddition to fine-tuning communications about the project, SPS leadership met with staff at each highschool to engage in conversations about the purpose of the work and to respond individually toquestions and concerns of teachers and administrators. To aid community understanding, communitymeetings were conducted in four quadrants of the city; leaders explained the work, attempted to allayfears and addressed questions and concerns. At least one of the following leaders was always inattendance: the superintendent, chief academic officer and a school board member. While thesuperintendent and chief academic officer held explanatory meetings in all high schools and articulatedthe project during four community meetings, SPSs Literacy and Social Studies Program Managerstates that many teachers and school leaders remained unconvinced that alignment was necessary toimprove student performance. What was lacking was the rationale and research to support alignment,including case studies of schools where alignment increased student achievement and decreasedplacement of graduates in remediation courses. Because so many teachers and school leaders did notbuy in to alignment to standards, the implementation focused largely on the materials and theoverarching goals of the courses, rather than the discreet standards identified for college and careerreadiness.18

Personnel Changes at All Levels

Superintendent: In the spring of 2011, the discovery of misappropriation of district funds by themanager of a department unrelated to strategic plan implementation led to the dismissal of thesuperintendent who led the development of the plan. The chief academic officer wasimmediately named as interim superintendent and was expected to be named to the positionpermanently this past spring. However, she unexpectedly announced last December that shewould not apply for the permanent appointment; in June, she left SPS district to accept theleadership position in a nearby district. In July, the school board hired a new superintendent tofill the position held by three different people in less than 18 months.

Governance: Since 2009, four inexperienced board members have been elected to the seven-member governing body. With more than half the board being new to their positions,significant time has been needed to orient the new members to the strategic plan. It isimportant to help the new members gain an understanding of their role in supporting the plan inthe context of their governance responsibilities so as to avoid conflict or confusion with staffvis--vis their roles.

Cabinet

18 See Appendix D for a larger excerpt of the program managers perspective.

: There have been at least two changes to the management structure of the district and ahigh level of turnover in the actual positions.


11/27


o The Executive Director of Strategic Planning who developed most of the BMGF grantproposal, served as principle driver of implementation; she drafted most of the first twointerim reports left the district 22 months ago, at which point the position waseliminated.

o In January 2011, an Executive Director of Research, Evaluation, Assessment andDevelopment was hired and was delegated some of this projects leadership. In July

2012, he was laid off and the department was merged with IT.o Other cabinet members that have left the district in the last eight months include the

Deputy Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction,Director of Teaching and Learning, and Executive Director of Policy and StrategicInitiatives, and two Executive Directors.

Project Managers: Underscoring the degree of turnover and other HR changes at the district isthis: in 2009, there were 20 different SPS staff delegated tasks related to strategic plan andgrant implementation either as project managers or project sponsors. Today, only six of those20 people are still working for the district, and three of those are now in jobs unrelated to thisgrant.19

Despite the fact that the new people in these key positions (some of which are presently vacant) haveno history with this strategic plan, the Alliance and others inside and outside the district (includingPPPE) are reinforcing the importance of sustaining the effort and continuing this important work forstudents.

Recession and the New Revenue RealitiesAt a recent retreat, one school board member remarked that when the strategic plan was beingdeveloped, it was during a period when education funding was the highest it had been in 27 years. Bythe time this grant was awarded late in 2008, the economy had begun its downward spiral, but fewwould have predicted its severity and depth, and the extent of its impact on state funding for publicschools. Nonetheless, it is clear that the district did not develop adequate contingencies for strategicplan implementation and sustainability in the event of a dramatic revenue downturn.

The economic changes that ensued over the subsequent four years resulted in unexpected staffing andbudget cuts, reducing the districts capacity to implement with fidelity. In addition, federal fundssupporting some of the strategic plan work has declined. This includes Title I and Title II-A. Thedistrict reports that when the federalElementary and Secondary Education Act(aka,No Child LeftBehind) was not reauthorized, it compromised the foundation on which to build lasting educationalprograms. Please see section VIII, Organization Capacity, for further discussion on the impact ofrevenue shortfalls.

19 Twelve SPS personnel contributed content to this report; a number of these contributors were not employed by SPS when the grantbegan, and none had been delegated project-related responsibilities when the grant began. The Alliance is grateful to SPSs GrantsDirector Kevin Corrigan who led report coordination at the district. Contributors included: Eric Anderson, Manager of Research,Evaluation, & Assessment; Steve Wright, Min Yee and Heidi Nguyen, Technical Services; Robert Vaughan, Advanced LearningManager; David Ogden, AP Incentive Coordinator; Kathleen Vasquez, Literacy and Social Studies Program Manager; Lesley Rogers,Chief Communications Officer; Andrew Olsen, Title I Consulting Teacher and former Data Coach; Michael Stone, Title I Supervisor;and Kenny Ching, Accounting Supervisor.


12/27


CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED BY ALLIANCE FOR EDUCATION

Conducting the Alliances two areas of work under this grant required frequent contact with numerousSPS departments and staff. During the first 3 years of this work, the majority of our contactsremained steady at the SPS central office. However, in the past year the leadership and staffingturnover has been more significant than in previous years.

Specific to the Alliances School Board Development activities, these factorsimpacted the work:

Engagement of Directors: Initially board members were not sold on the value of this program.However, within a very short period of time, board members came to recognize the advocacyrole this provided them both working internally with the district and externally withcommunities.

Planning vs. Responsiveness: Alliance staff strove for balance between developing a strategicapproach to leadership development, and allowing enough flexibility to respond to the rapidlychanging needs of the district. Initially the Alliance project director developed a three yearplan, but the ability to respond to emerging needs helped board members realize the concretevalue of this project.

Ongoing Governance: We underestimated the amount of time and effort it would take to reachagreement about sound governance practices and implement the protocols to support them. Wehave learned that governance must be an ongoing topic woven into particular areas of work. Inthe coming year we will use the strategic plan refresh process as the framework throughwhich we reinforce proper governance.

Election Cycles: The fact that each board position is subject to a 4-year election cycle createsan ongoing challenge for continuity and the sustainability of our work supporting best practicesin governance. In 2011, the four board members whose terms were expiring all chose to run forreelection, a coup considering how difficult the roles are. However, two of the skilled directorslost their seats to challengers; this resulted in the loss of their knowledge and good governance

practices, as well as institutional continuity. Community Awareness: We believe it is critically important to help community members

better understand the role of a school board member. Candidates often run on single issues,ones that are not governance-level decisions, but rather management responsibilities. Thegeneral public understandably does not have adequate understanding of the governance role. Inthe coming year we intend to develop an outreach and education effort aimed at raisingawareness. We are building the plan around models already in existence across the country.

In the Community Engagement (CE) work, the Alliance had the opportunity and the challenge tobuild a program from scratch. The challenges included:

Clarity of purpose: It was difficult at times to determine exactly what the purpose was for thiswork and to meaningfully communicate to a variety of diverse communities. Over time welearned that outreach was much stronger when it was issue driven; but to be successful thefoundational relationships had to already be in place.

Capacity: Most of the CE activities were undertaken by the CE Manager. He learned quicklyhow important it was to collaborate with other organizations and advocates in order to makeprogress. Although in theory everyone agrees to this, the reduced capacity and high turnoverthat has occurred in many organizations over the past few years made it difficult for them tofollow through completely.


13/27


Competing priorities: Although many community members and educational advocates haveexpressed the need for dramatic education reform and increased student/family support,priorities often change when it gets to the details. There is often rigorous competition fordollars, attention and time. Alliance staffers were able to develop the facilitation skills andintuitive ability to surface and invite respectful discourse on complex, sometimes sensitiveissues.

V. Strategic Lessons Learned

1.


Engage StakeholdersOne of the most significant lessons learnedis the importance of senior leadership making theinvestment of time to adequately engage and involve impacted groups in the planning andimplementation process and to be open and frank about the future viability of the programming.

When the curriculum alignment project began, alignment to college and career readinessstandards was not widespread. A few states had written new standards to consider morerigorous benchmarks, and most were still focused on standards and assessments, requiringstudents to perform at minimum levels of expectations. At the heart of the alignment projectwas the move toward higher standards to ensure a variety of options for students aftergraduation.

This work pushed extremely difficult conversations forward with teachers and principals:should we prepare all students for such high expectations? In advance of the common corestate standards, SPS offered professional development to teachers and principals exposing themto best practices in college and career readiness and forcing a dialogue about a guaranteedcurriculum as well as academic supports for students. All of this preliminary work wasintended to serve as a foundation for the Common Core State Standards, thus allowing SPSHigh Schools to understand the impetus behind them. As a result, high school teachers wereoffered significant preparation for the major shifts the Common Core called forward.However, as documented above by Kathleen Vasquez, Literacy and Social Studies ProgramManager, a large number of high school teachers did not feel that the research and theunderlying rationale for alignment were sufficient. Offering broader preparation, additionalgroup conversations and opportunities for dialogue could have ameliorated this disconnect.

Throughout curriculum alignment, SPS was committed to using an iterative process to bringteachers and teacher-leaders at all levels toward a shared commitment to the curricular changes.The process included as many teachers as possible. All major decisions began with departmentheads reaching agreement; the next step was department heads taking the agreements toteachers and then bringing the feedback back to the alignment committee. With each round ofdiscussion came a deeper identification and discussion of the barriers and challenges as well asthe benefits of the changes. As the district became fully engaged in the alignment process, theSuperintendent and the Chief Academic Officer addressed each schools staff to explain thereason for alignment and to discuss the purpose behind it. The messaging was delivered with arationale, and it provided an opportunity to engage in dialogue about the vision and expectedoutcome of the work. The participants, in general, felt respected by the attention and


14/27


appreciated leaderships direct response to their questions. Further work needs to be done toimprove the engagement process at the high school level once permanent leadership is in placein the Curriculum & Assessment division.

2. Develop Funding Contingencies

3.

In the data and assessments strand of work, the data coaches working directly with principalsand school staff on the interpretation and use of data proved to be both valuable and necessary.The lesson learned, however, is that the district needed to begin the process of institutionalizingthis work from day one so that its continuation could weather fluctuations in funding. While itwas known from the outset that funding was limited, there was not the means to sustain all ofthe data coaches beyond the life of the grant.

Similarly, a key lesson learned relative toperformance managementis to tie the sustainabilityplan directly to the work. When first conceived, the district was able to allocate funds toreward schools for achievement or to allocate funds based on academic need. These includedlocal (baseline), state and federal funds. As the economy faltered, the district continued tomove forward with this expansion plan without fully addressing the reduced financial capacityto reward or assist schools. Schools were not advised on how to realign existing resources andwere not encouraged to make the hard choice in funding the necessary work. The result wasthat after three years, the only funds available for performance management were the annualtitle I or LAP dollars, funds for which there were numerous competing priorities. Futureiterations of this work must include a long-term funding strategy that addresses potential ebbsand flows of funding.

Maintain a Proactive Communications StrategyEffective communications are not merely reactive and are not done in silos. Strategiccommunications are proactive. They create a constant drumbeat of message awareness toimprove public opinion. The district needs to stay current with all contemporarycommunication channels to tell its story to internal and external audiences. The district needs to

continue working on its long-term proactive internal and external communications. This grantprovided an excellent foundation on which to build and has put sustainable solutions in placethat will the district will use going forward.

4. Engage Partners in Pursuit of Common Goals

B.

See section XI (Sustainability) for a list of CBOs that the district partnered with to leverageimpact toward student achievement and strategic plan goals.

1.

ALLIANCE FOR EDUCATION LESSONS LEARNED

It Takes a Stable Village To Support GovernanceWe learned that governance training is not something that can be taught, understood andimplemented in a short period of time, particularly when dealing with the highly complexstructures, needs and limitations of a large urban school district. Although the quarterly retreatsresulted in agreement about governance, moving beyond the theoretical agreement into dailypractice was challenged. Despite agreement to the theory, there was not an oversight process tosupport Directors in governance best practices. In 2010, two things happened:


15/27


Rather than leaving the action items up to SPS staff, Alliance staff followed up on stepstaken in those efforts.

Restructuring provided a staff position that could better support the work.

But the ongoing turnover continues to create challenges for the board. The only place that hasnot experienced turnover is in the Alliances management of this work.

2. Ongoing Professional Development (PD) for Board Members

3.

School Board support must be ongoing for a variety of reasons. Although you can build a stronggovernance structure, the rapidly shifting landscape of public education such as the challengingeconomic environment of the past four years, and the churn of staff turnover bring unanticipatedchallenges to both district leadership and the school board.

A Robust Orientation Module is Required

4.

It takes 1 to 2 years for newly elected board members to fully grasp the governance role. Earlyon in the tenure of a new board member we must provide effective orientation and focusedgovernance training to help them more quickly develop a foundation upon which they canbecome a fully functioning member of an effective team.

There exists a healthy tension between the governing leaders and the management of a schooldistrict. In Seattle, however, there were no advocates for board members within the district whocould both push SPS staff for appropriate levels of information and push back with boardmembers when they stepped over the management line. The restructuring of the board office hashelped somewhat in providing board members with additional support and advocacy within thedistrict; it also provided staff that could develop the processes and procedures for oversightmanagement. However, the board office has also experienced staff turnover. The officerequires strong managers that can help manage the highly political environment.

Board Members Need Advocates

5. Board Development Support Is Highly Valued But Maybe Not Right Away

6.

Despite early skepticism, this work is highly valued by the board members, current and past, andregardless of their consistency in staying at the governance level. In the coming year theAlliance will expand the work and develop the initial outline for a sustainability plan. Ultimatelythe work should continue to be managed outside the district to provide the objectivity that isdifficult to achieve in the governance/ management relationship.

Community Engagement Cannot Be a Stand-Alone Program

7.

Initially we attempted to build a Community Engagementprogram, but found the work needs tobe woven into almost all activities both within the district and the community. Our outreachbecame more effective when we shifted to an issue-driven approach. There are many competing

efforts trying to gain the attention of community members; consequently, any engagement effortneeds to provide diverse communities with meaningful value, and demonstrate that their voicematters.

Building Relationships is CriticalMany communities receive numerous requests for their input, but too often there is no follow-up. What community members rarely see is the result of their input, or persons returning to sharehow those comments and concerns are shaping the future. The Alliances CE Manager met withseveral groups that were surprised when he returned to provide follow-up information. However,


16/27


we struggled in consistently showing how community voices and responses were used to informdistrict and Alliance actions moving forward. As we re-envision what CE will look like in thefuture, we are committed to threading the work across the programs and integrating theselessons into the work.

8. Community Engagement Is Never Done

9.

Communities change; school and district staff change; priorities and issues change. Thefoundation of strong relationships must be regularly nurtured to address the emerging issues andconcerns that face community members and the schools that serve them.

Consider Collaborative Community Engagement

In the future it would be worthwhile for community-based organizations (CBOs) to explorecollaborating on outreach efforts. There are hundreds of CBOs serving sectors of our communityand they often do outreach to their individual constituents. This results in confusion about howwe work together and what the intent is of our work.

VI. Evaluation


No outside evaluator was engaged to assess performance on this particular grant. However, thePhilanthropic Partnership forPublic Education (PPPE) is funding a strategic plan refresh and thework of the project manager20

will include an evaluation of strategic plan progress and performance todate.

The district reviews progress toward strategic plan goals through theDistrict Scorecard,individualSchool Reports (bit.ly/school_reports), and the changes in the performance levels of schools per theSPS Performance Segmentation Framework(Appendix C).

The curriculum alignmentproject was developed in such a way as to get feedback from teachers ateach juncture. Leadership within the project evaluated to ensure the products would be acceptable andused by most teachers. The standards, the texts, protocols and the course descriptions were vetted byteacher leaders and teachers. Project leaders examined feedback from the teachers and the communityand made modifications when needed. School year 2011-2012 proved to demonstrate that allcomprehensive schools had shifted to the new course descriptions developed during the project.Course descriptions at the high schools now match the district descriptions, suggesting that all coreacademic courses have the same learning objectives and all students are taught the same content.

In the implementation ofConnectEDUas part of the College Readiness work, counselors are asked to

provide feedback both on the professional development they receive and on the tool itself. We areintegrating this feedback into PD planning and into our conversations with the ConnectEDUdevelopment team.

In theData and Assessments strand of work:

20 The RFP process is underway and the SPS expects to name the contracted project manager by the end of November.
http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404fhttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404fhttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404fhttp://bit.ly/school_reportshttp://bit.ly/school_reportshttp://bit.ly/school_reportshttp://bit.ly/school_reportshttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404f


17/27


There has been continuing refinement of the Continuous School Improvement Plans (C-SIPs).The C-SIPs are two year plans developed at each school that are a direct result of theData andAssessments strand of this grant.

SPS was not able to sustain all the data coaches that had been assigned to schools; however, thedistrict was able to provide initial training and follow-up with a cadre of principals, assistantprincipals and teachers at each school.

A fundamental goal of the strategic plan and this grant was to embed data-driven decisionmaking in every aspect of the educational services the district provides. This concept is nowrooted in planning at all levels. It drives the use not only for baseline or general funding, it isa required tool in the development of plans to use all resources including Title I and LearningAssistance Program (LAP) at each school. Additionally, as the district and the City of Seattlebegin a new, seven-year cycle of Families & Education Levy (FEL) funding, schools aremandated via the Citys Request for Investment (RFI) process to use data in their proposals.The process was developed in collaboration with the district. The required data is more thanjust surface; it includes data by curricular area, by gender, race and grade level. This enablesthe schools to target those students most in need. Without the contributions of the data coachesand the creation of the Academic Data Warehouse through this funding, the use of data would

not be as rich or as engrained at the school level.

In the Performance Managementstrand of work, there has been a significant shift in the way schoolsview and use supplemental resources based on school data. The primary goal was to develop a district-wide approach to leverage dollars to provide academic supports unique to each school. In 2010 thedistrict implemented a school improvement framework that directed resources to schools based onacademic performance and needs at each individual school. The funds consisted of a combination ofTitle I, Learning Assistance Program and baseline funding, along with federal American Recovery andReinvestment Act (ARRA) funds. The framework also provided teachers, administrators and familieswith clear information about progress at every level of the district. While the districts ability tomaintain the allocation of funds based on performance was not feasible due to the recession and

resulting reduction in funds, two solid developments evolved from this work:

Continuous School Improvement Plans (C-SIPs): As described above, C-SIPs are plansdeveloped by a representative team within each building and are meant to provide roadmap foreach school using all available financial information and performance data available.

Supplemental Funding tied to Need: Each school in the district receives either federal Title Ifunds or state Learning Assistance Program (LAP) funds. The use of these flexible dollars hasmoved from one in which they were used to fund favorite projects or the status quo to theirbeing used to fund academically solid and scientifically-proven programs with the data tosupport their success.

ALLIANCE FOR EDUCATIONIn an informal review of theBoard DevelopmentandCommunity Engagementwork, the Allianceidentified these results:

A deepened understanding among board members regarding the roles and responsibilities ingovernance, particularly with respect to boards role vs. superintendent/staff role

A new and streamlined process for policy development and review Development of processes that support board members in oversight management


18/27


Improved document management protocols Execution of a cost-neutral restructuring of board office staff to provide a higher-level of

support and strategic counsel to board members

Access to governance resources across the country, informing decision-making. New relationships with diverse communities through the Alliances Community Engagement

activities

An increased voice of organizations of color through their participation in the Our SchoolsCoalition (OSC).21

This does not apply to this project.VII. Intellectual Property

VIII. Organizational Capacity

SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLSThe four years of project implementation have been marked by significant external and internalchanges and challenges impacting capacity. Most of these were described in section IV above, Unmet

Outcome/Challenges. The revenue shortfalls have had the greatest impact on theData & AssessmentsandPerformance Managementstrands of work. Maintaining a sufficient number of qualified personnelhas been the most significant capacity challenge in theData & Assessmentwork. The district relies oncontractors to assist in this work. Funding for these contractors is not stable at this time. A keyelement of the Data & Assessment work was the hiring of data coaches to work with administratorsand schools on interpreting and responding appropriately to the data presented. Reductions in state andfederal funding resulted in severe cuts in central budgets, including for data coaches. The district wasable to sustain the work of just one coach past the life of the grant. Certain programs, such as Title I,have been able to provide some data support for specific schools, but the Research and Assessmentdepartment has been severely stretched in its efforts to provide meaningful assistance during 2011-12to the present.

In the Performance Managementarea, the lack of funding for differentiated support to schoolsinfluenced the ongoing impact of this initiative. However, the district has been able to continueimproving the reports available to principals, staff, parents and the community. Cuts in state andfederal funding led to discontinuing the allocating of funds to schools based on their performance andneed. In 2009 and 2010, the district used federalAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act(ARRA)andEducation Jobs funding to offset cuts that would have otherwise occurred. This, however, wasonly a temporary fix, and served only to lessen the funding cliff that was caused by cuts in statefunding (e.g.,Learning Assistance Program (LAP) andI-728funding). As a result, only the provisionof refined school and district reports was sustained.

On the positive side, the steady work of community based organizations (CBOs) that partner with thedistrict or individual schools has positively impacted the capacity to improve academic outcomes. 22

21Seewww.ourschoolscoalion.org22 SPS is grateful for these partnerships. At the same time, they does place a stress on district capacity in terms of incorporating theoutcomes-related data needs into the workload of districts limited IT and research staff. In the case of ConnectEDU implementation,SPS is learning from San Francisco Unified School district as they implement the tool and work through collaboration and FERPAcompliance issues.
http://www.ourschoolscoalion.org/http://www.ourschoolscoalion.org/http://www.ourschoolscoalion.org/http://www.ourschoolscoalion.org/


19/27


Communities in Schools, the YMCAs Community Learning Centers, City Year, RainierScholars, Garfield Scholars, Big Brothers Big Sisters, numerous college access providers,health and mental health providers, and several other CBOs have leveraged federal, city orother funding for school-based services that impact attendance and academic performance.

The Alliance has started programs, often with support of BMGF, that are directly aligned withthe districts goals. These Alliance programs include the Seattle College Access Network, the

Intensive School Partnerships Project and the Our Schools Coalition. See Appendix for a one-page description of Alliance programs.

ALLIANCE FOR EDUCATIONThe Alliance had a transition in executive leadership in 2010 that did not negatively impact thecapacity of the organization to carry out this work. While our net revenue and unrestricted net assetbalances declined in 2008 and 2009 due to recession-related factors, we have re-engineered our funddevelopment plan and increased the effectiveness of our fund raising the last two years; moreover,there has been no operating deficit during this time.

Through a grant from the Boeing Company, the Alliance will continue to have the capacity to provide

support to the school board. As to the CE Manager, these grant funds acted exactly as they wereintended - as catalytic. As the 3-year, grant-funded CE Manager position came to an end, the Alliancetransitioned its organizational approach to one in which community engagement is fully embeddedwithin each of our distinct programs.

IX. Financial Report (budget template)The budget report template will be separately submitted.

X. Project Budget Narrative


Against a $6.2 million subgrant budget, there was a 2.2% balance ($142K) on August 31, 2012.BMGF has authorized a no-cost extension which allows $60,000 of the underspend to be used forspecific purposes in the 12 months ending August 31, 2013.23

Against a budget of $1,515,449, there was a 2.3% underspend of $31,123 that was due primarily tolower than expected cost for the one (1) data coach for the 2011-12 school year.

This will reduce the underspend toabout 1.3%. The underspend was in these BMGF budget categories:

Personnel and Benefits:

Consulting & Professional Fees:Against a budget of $ 4,026,203, there is a 1% balance of $37,252.

The Telling the Story video project started under Dr. Enfields tenure was suspended when itwas clear that there would be a change in leadership.

23The limited extension authorizes $60,000 to be used for support for Executive Directors and forMAP training for teachers.


20/27


Actual costs of online professional development (PD) from Educational Impact, Inc. andTheDanielson Group were less than budgeted.24

Other Direct Expenses:Against a budget of $627,495 there is a balance of $74,857 (12%). Within the several costs of thiscategory, the outliers include:

MAP Technical Lead Extra Time: Underspend of $5,000. Technical Lead on the MAPproject did not require the anticipated extra time during the 2011-12 school year. PD for Language Arts & Social Studies: Underspend of $22,948 was a result of a reduced

usage in the amount of professional development for teachers and school leaders due tofluctuations in support of alignment of curricula to standards. PD that did occur focusedlargely on the materials and overarching goals, rather than the discreet standards identified forcollege and career readiness. Administrators and site leaders required more preparation tounderstand the potential impact of the alignment work and to fully support teachers in thevarious stages of implementation leading to full implementation

Teacher Advisory Council Stipends: Budget was overspent by $5,141. Stipends werebudgeted at $1,000 for 20 participants in the Teacher Advisory Council (TAC). There were

actually 21 participants paid $1,000 each during 2011-12. This expense should have includedmandatory benefit costs at roughly 19%. The extra participant and the unbudgeted benefitsaccount for this overspend.

ALLIANCE FOR EDUCATIONAgainst the $580,000 budget forSchool Board DevelopmentandCommunity Engagementwork, thereremains a $15,000 (2.5%) balance. The underspend was primarily in the Other Direct Expensescategory.

XI. Sustainability Plans

While the district had developed sustainability plans for the work, the extent of the challenges(identified above) has compromised those plans.

The grant will continue into a 5th year pursuant to a limited no cost extension which authorizes$60,000 of the 8/31/12 underspend of $142,000 to be used for support for Executive Directors and forMAP training for teachers.

Unrelated to the extension, key aspects of the work have been sustained and are continuing:

While the district has not been able to provide funding for differentiated services to schools afterthe first three years of the grant, it has been able to continue refining and providing school reportsthat site teams use to develop school improvement plans. In doing so, it has given the schools theability to look at their data and their available resources and then plan for the greatest and highestuse of these funds.

Ongoing costs for maintaining and supporting theAcademic Data Warehouse andMAP werebuilt into the BTA-3 levy approved by Seattle voters in February, 2010. Funding for this issecured though FY13.

24 The two year structured contract for PD in theDanielson Frameworkwas based on usage and the breadth of the program selected byparticipants. Two options were available: a streamlined Danielson Only series and a broader Online Academy including Danielsonseries. Underspend was due to participants opting for the less expensive, streamlined version of this program.
http://www.danielsongroup.org/article.aspx?page=frameworkforteachinghttp://www.danielsongroup.org/article.aspx?page=frameworkforteachinghttp://www.danielsongroup.org/article.aspx?page=frameworkforteachinghttp://www.danielsongroup.org/article.aspx?page=frameworkforteaching


21/27


The college readiness work has stabilized in the past year with the hiring of a full-time managerto oversee programming. This is reinforced with the adoption of college and career readiness bythe Citys Office for Education as one of the main priorities in the new, seven-year cycle of theFamilies & Education Levy which began in September 2012.

The communications work was designed to be sustainable by focusing on building internalcommunications capacity across departments and providing common tools and on-line supports.

With support provided by Philanthropic Partnership for Public Education (PPPE), SPS will engage acontractor to conduct a formal review of strategic plan performance, and will begin a process to refreshand refine the strategic plan to 2016, with extended goals. The school board will be involved at keypoints through this process and will receive a final recommendation in September, 2013.

ALLIANCE FOR EDUCATIONThe Alliances School Board Development work in the 2011-12 school year was undertaken with anexplicit awareness that this grant was scheduled to end in August, 2012. Thanks to support fromBMGF we were able to extend it to cover the fall retreat, held on September 22, 2012.

We have recently received a commitment from the Boeing Company that will enable the Alliance tocontinue and expand the program in 2012-13. This will include components that support sustainabilityincluding:

o A robust on boarding module for newly elected directors to assure that they are oriented tothe fundamental principles of governance and their specific roles and responsibilities.

o Individual coaching to help board members perform their duties as strategically andproductively as possible

o A community education program to raise public awareness about the role of a board and theattributes of boards operating consistent with best practices in governance.

In the coming year, we will work to reinforce understanding of best practices in role clarification,policy development, communications strategy and other key areas to encourage self-policing ofgovernance practices, another component of sustainability.

Regardless, professional development (PD) and other support will be required beyond the term of thisgrant. Accordingly, the Alliance is helping the district build a sustainable model, recognizing thedistricts financial challenges. We will encourage that a portion of the professional development besupported by the district; however, we believe there is ongoing value in the perspective and objectivitybrought by some level of third party involvement in this work.

In Community Engagement, we have both a short and long term strategy for sustainability. TheAlliances former CE Manager implemented a variety of outreach strategies, nurtured important newrelationships, and built a solid foundation. In the short term we intend to identify a couple of key issuesfor outreach, e.g., college access/success and teacher effectiveness.

The long-term sustainability of this work requires:

An outreach program built on strong relationships with individuals and organizations across thediverse communities of Seattle.

Information, resources and materials to share with community members in their homelanguages.


22/27


An effort to build capacity within the communities to support students in their homes and in theorganizations they participate with in their daily lives.

The long-term plan has always been to build sustainable capacity within communities. In our collegeaccess work (SCAN), we are seeking funding to do just that. The strategy is to develop teams withincommunities and provide stipends, materials and training opportunities. This will provide a student

support infrastructure within their homes and community venues including social and recreationalorganizations, places of worship and other settings.

We recognize that in the short term many community partners still need fundamental support to helpthem strengthen their voices to effectively advocate for students and shape their communities. We aretherefore researching other funding sources to extend this important work beyond the life of this grant.

XII. Reports/Publications

A recent example of sharing data outside the district wasExecutive Director of Schools CarmellaDellinos presentation at the annual conference of the Council of Great City Schools about how aprincipal used data to drive change at a previously low performing school (Indianapolis, October2012). See Appendix G.

SPS is constantly sharing data with parents and the community through The Source and through theannual publication of theDistrict ScorecardandSchool Reports. Other reports available to interestedparties are:

A presentation by SPSs REA staff at the BMGF Education Pathways retreat last spring The Teacher Advisory Council report (facilitation of TAC was funded as part of the extension

of the subgrant that was approved for the period September 2011 to August 2012).

The grantee and subgrantee very much appreciate the Foundationspartnership approach to grantmaking. We especially appreciated the opportunity to present at the BMGF Education Pathwaysretreat last spring. 3 of3

XIII. Foundation Relationship
http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404fhttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404fhttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404fhttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/communications/State%20of%20the%20District/Final_District_Scorecard_2011-2012.pdf?sessionid=bb4475d3a633920698afa565a88b404f


23/27


Appendices

A. Outcomes and Milestones (separately attached)B. Description of Alliance for Education ProgramsC. Bar graph showing the changes in number of schools per level from 2009 to 2012 and a table

showing the segmentation levels of each school from 2009 to 2011

D. A Managers perspective on the limited progress toward the Reading goalsE. A presentation about SPSs use of data and performance management to PPPE on July 18, 2012(separately attached).

F. Teacher Advisory Council report (separately attached).G. Executive Director of Schools Carmella Dellinos presentation at the annual conference of the

Council (separately attached).


24/27


Appendix B

Alliance for Education Mission and Programs

The Alliance for Education is Seattles local education fund.25

Our mission is to ensure thatall students inSeattle Public Schools are prepared for college, career and life. The Alliance was formed in 1995 through amerger of three groups with similar missions. The objective was to serve as an independent catalyst toimprove performance of Seattle Public Schools. The Alliance supports public education in Seattle in threespecific and interconnected ways: Funding - leveraging private resources for systemic change that raisesstudent achievement;Advocacy - acting as an independent voice and external catalyst for change; andCommunity Engagement- convening leaders to facilitate action around education issues.

Within that construct, we focus on three core priorities:

Academic Rigorto set a high bar and help transform the district into a college and career readyculture; Effective Teaching, supporting greater accountability and opportunity within the teaching corps and

developing new pathways for high quality teaching talent to enter SPS; and Leadership Development, including support for School Board, Superintendent, Cabinet and principals.

Since 2008, a primary focus of our partnership with SPS has been the 5 year strategic plan, Excellence for All.

The plan sets ambitious academic goals and describes how the targets will be achieved. To date, the Alliancehas generated over $9 million to implement the plan. Our work has contributed to an 11 point increase in thehigh school graduation rate since 2008, reaching 73%;26 academic proficiency increasing in nearly everysubject and grade on state assessments;27

and the Proficiency of 3rd through 8th graders exceeding the stateaverage; and the emergence of aperformance management culture.

Alliance ProgramsThe Alliance operates its own programs pursuant to the three core priorities.

Seattle College Access Network: We organized 40 independent providers and are facilitating acollaborative plan to increase post-secondary enrollment of low income and students of color.

Intensive School Partnerships: We collaborate with SPS on the launch of a new partnership framework

at three pilot sites. The new framework strengthens coordination, alignment and evaluation of school-based service providers consistent with the goal of improving academic outcomes.

Our Schools Coalition: Co-leading the Coalition28

Teacher Residency Program: This partnership with SPS, the UW College of Education and the SeattleEducation Association is applying the medical residency model to prepare teachers for placement inhigh-need schools. A multi-stakeholder curriculum and program planning process began in August,2012; the first cohort of residents and mentors will start in August, 2013.

, we conduct research and organize issue-focused publiccampaigns to improve student achievement. Influenced by our advocacy in 2010, evaluations of teachersnow reference students academic growth, and educators have enriched career opportunities.

School Board Leadership Development: The Alliance provides support for improving the policydevelopment process, orientation of newly elected directors to their demanding new roles andresponsibilities, and organization of retreats and trainings to reinforce best practices in governance.

Direct School Support: The Alliance provides fiscal services to over 200 individual schools and schoolsupport groups, including PTAs. Funds raised by these groups support programs in academics, the arts,languages, public service, technology, sports and other enrichments. Our service includes serving as their501(c)(3) fiscal sponsor, and processing more than 5,000 donations totaling over $1.3 million annually.

25 Local education funds (LEFs) are community organizations dedicated to improving education in a particular geographic area. LEFs are independent and are not justschool foundations. Many develop and promote policy, conduct advocacy campaigns, and operate their own programs. Seewww.publiceducation.org.26 Data in this section is from2011 State of the District, SPS Performance Page, District Scorecard, andHigh Schools Report.27 See Measurements of Student Progress, Washingtons annual assessment of student learning (http://www.k12.wa.us/assessment/default.aspx).28 Co-leaders of the coalition are the League of Education Voters and the Technology Alliance. Seewww.ourschoolscoalition.org
http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?pageid=192404&sessionid=a098d3c2314bc05f860a3b238bf7dec4&thttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?pageid=192404&sessionid=a098d3c2314bc05f860a3b238bf7dec4&thttp://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?pageid=192404&sessionid=a098d3c2314bc05f860a3b238bf7dec4&thttp://www.publiceducation.org/http://www.publiceducation.org/http://www.publiceducation.org/http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?sessionid=a098d3c2314bc05f860a3b238bf7dec4&pageid=253802&sessionid=a098d3c2314bc05f860a3b238bf7dec4http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?sessionid=a098d3c2314bc05f860a3b238bf7dec4&pageid=253802&sessionid=a098d3c2314bc05f860a3b238bf7dec4http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?sessionid=a098d3c2314bc05f860a3b238bf7dec4&pageid=218215&sessionid=a098d3c2314bc05f860a3b238bf7dec4http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?sessionid=a098d3c2314bc05f860a3b238bf7dec4&pageid=218215&sessionid=a098d3c2314bc05f860a3b238bf7dec4http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/st

BMG Report All4Ed SPS StratPlan Grant52309 11-2-12

Documents

Transcript of BMG Report All4Ed SPS StratPlan Grant52309 11-2-12