Effective strategies leaders can use to significantly improve and sustain education turnaround efforts.

Conditions and Policies Needed to Create and Sustain High Performing Schools
July 27, 2012
Authors: Ted Fujimoto & Kyle Miller

Landmark Consulting Group Conditions and Policies Needed to Create and Sustain High Performing Schools July 27, 2012

Advisor Recognition
With much gratitude we recognize the following people who generously contributed their wisdom and guidance.

Sally Bachofer
Assistant Commissioner, Office of School Innovation New York State Education Department

Bob Pearlman
Former Director of Education and Workforce Development at Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network Former Coordinator of Educational Reform Initiatives for the American Federation of Teachers

Justin C. Cohen
President, The School Turnaround Group - Mass Insight Education

Sheree Speakman
Former Evaluation Director Walton Family Foundation

Deborah Doordan, Ed.D

Executive Director, Innovative Schools The Center for School Innovation

Adam Tucker
Senior Lead Program Officer Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Lydia Dobyns
President, New Tech Network

Robbyn Wahby
Deputy Chief of Staff to the Mayor of the City of St. Louis

David Dresslar
Executive Director, Center of Excellence in Leadership of Learning, University of Indianapolis

Rich Wenning
Former Associate Education Commissioner - State of Colorado

Copyright 2012 by Landmark Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

1|Page

Landmark Consulting Group Conditions and Policies Needed to Create and Sustain High Performing Schools July 27, 2012

Introduction
Every school day, about 7,000 students decide to drop out of school a total of 1.2 million students each year and only about 70% of entering high school freshman graduate every year. Approximately 2,000 of Americas high schools produce half of the nations dropouts. Without a high school diploma, young people are less likely to succeed in the workforce. Each year, our nation loses $319 billion in potential earnings associated with the dropout crisis. (Whitehouse Press Release, March 10, 2010) We believe it is vital for our country to cut the dropout rate in half. To do so, it is not enough to target the 2,000 high school dropout factories because this would assume that these schools will eventually graduate 100% of students. Additionally, this does not account for middle school dropouts and the 50% of high school dropouts that are coming from non-dropout factory high schools. We believe that the bottom 5% or about 5,000 schools need to be transformed and/or replaced. If we assume the average size of these schools is 1,500 students and the average size of most high performance schools is less than 500 students, then 15,000 small school equivalents will need to be created. The schools that need transformation and/or replacement have extremely high dropout rates of 30-50%. If high performing schools were to fix the dropout rate in the bottom 5% of schools, 20,000-30,000 small school equivalents would need to be created. To ensure America stays competitive, we must significantly shift our approach in education reform from interesting one-off experiments and pilots to large scaling of what works. (Landmark Consulting Group, July 2011) As a country weve acknowledged, studied and defined the reasons for the dropout crisis. School is not engaging. Students are uninspired and unmotivated, behind in credits, truant and/or have more pressing priorities like work or family obligations. Weve also defined what prevents students from dropping out: engaging instruction, relevance, support, rigorous academic culture, and meaningful relationships. High performing schools that implement these strategies do exist and are producing strong outcomes. Some of these schools are replicating nationally and others have potential to replicate but, no matter how successful schools are, they cannot survive in environments that have conditions preventing them from implementing their models with fidelity. Too many education reform efforts have failed to deliver the desired results and those that have shown promise, have been unsustainable. Many reform efforts have not addressed the creation of a supportive system of conditions and as a result what develops is a mildly toxic to extremely toxic environment that cripples the school and its effectiveness. Interestingly, many of the issues that need to be addressed are very obvious and if attended to could support a more effective reform effort. For example, a high performance school design trains and coaches a team of teachers to open a replication site but the district transfers half the team members to other schools prior to the opening and then transfers the other half the next year due to seniority bumping rights in the labor contract. The union probably would have been willing to provide a waiver to protect the teachers who were to start the school but, unfortunately, the district never asked for the waiver1.

NPR.org - When a New-Tech Model and Business-as-Usual Collide http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2011/09/06/when-a-new-tech-model-and-business-as-usual-collide/

Copyright 2012 by Landmark Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

2|Page

Landmark Consulting Group Conditions and Policies Needed to Create and Sustain High Performing Schools July 27, 2012

Another common mistake is the bias towards trying to create from scratch rather than encouraging schools to partner with a proven high performance school model design. Strong models have replication systems that provide professional development, coaching and tools to support fidelity implementation. Instead, teams try to be innovative by cobbling together research-based strategies and programs that were not designed to work together. Teachers end of working hard to integrate the pieces and trying to do good without knowing if their efforts are sufficient. By the time results are known (often disappointing), the next round of reform efforts have started and teachers are burnt out. This is why most of the failing schools that existed 20 years ago are still the failing schools today. Environments for many reform efforts have been top-down driven. The most effective efforts are topdown and/or bottom-up initiated, bottom-up driven, and top-down supported. Behaviors and actions of all stakeholders (board, district leadership, association members, students, parents, business, civic, higher education, and faith-based organizations) have to align with goals, conditions, policies, practices, and procedures to produce systems change. Entire systems have to progress from compliance, to buyin, to ownership, to authorship to significantly change to the conditions that support innovation. And finally, many reform efforts have suffered because the focus has been solely on acquiring autonomy from the system. Autonomy does not guarantee nor is it enough to produce innovation and high performance, hence the mixed results. It is challenging for a new or turnaround school to do it all design an innovative program, obtain authorization to open a school, launch the school, and then operate the school. Very few school teams have the required skill and experience to do all of these functions well. What matters in the end is what goes on within the school walls. Charter schools have an autonomous environment but many do not perform well because they have not used that autonomy to do anything differently within the school and especially within the classroom. The intent of this paper is to help communities and education leaders set environmental conditions that create and sustain high performing schools. This paper is informed by the experiences and work of national replication school models, various turnaround zone efforts including Recovery School District in Louisiana, education reform efforts in Detroit, Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento, New York City, Boston, Tennessee, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, Washington State, Texas, Delaware, and North Carolina and by Mass Insights Education Partnership Zone methodology. Additionally, the ideas here represent our lessons learned from working with communities cultivating schools, national replication school models and some charter schools.

Mall of America
In considering how a community creates the right conditions to support high performance schools, clearly defines roles of various parties, and ensures quality, the Mall of America story can provide some insight. In 1992, The Mall of America opened in Minneapolis with Copyright 2012 by Landmark Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved. 3|Page

Landmark Consulting Group Conditions and Policies Needed to Create and Sustain High Performing Schools July 27, 2012

much fanfare even though the country was in the middle of a recession. Many detractors said it would fail. It was one of the largest malls in the worldand it was located in the middle of the United States. 32 Boeing 747s could fit inside. Presently, it houses over 500+ stores and employs over 11,000 people year round. Even with the emergence of online shopping and other competitors, the Mall of America has maintained its staying power through its design and desirable environment. Today, it generates over $2 billion in economic activity per year for the State of Minnesota. We think there are key principles of running a great mall that can inform the work in education reform. 1. Standards and conditions to drive results. The goal is to create a vibrant and profitable retail environment. To reach the goal, the mall sets the standards and the right conditions to attract high quality, high visibility retailers that have a loyal customer base. The mall does not own and operate the various stores, nor does it tell retailers how to run their businesses. Furthermore, by first securing leases with brand recognition anchor stores, malls ensure the standard. Similarly, in education, districts and/or intermediaries can set standards and establish agreements that create the right conditions to drive results. Communities should first partner with high performing school models which have replication systems (including instructional coaching, practices, protocols, culture building supports, and data analysis competency) that lead to proven student achievement results. Providing the conditions and environments to attract these proven models ultimately sets the right stage for other schools to be effective. Districts and intermediaries need not be in the business of operating schools but rather should be in the business of creating the right conditions, supports and accountabilities. 2. Optimum set of customer choices. The mall must select the right combination of stores with the highest potential to generate resultsloyal customers, revenues, and long-term viability. Education leaders should understand the needs of their neighborhoods and communities and translate that to the right mix (high, middle, thematic, alternative, charter, non-charter), number, size, and location of schools. 3. Maintained environment. The mall ensures that the environment is attractive and well maintained. The mall commits to providing cleaning, maintenance, security, and responsive service to their retail tenants. In education, leaders should help create a cohesive set of supports around resources, facilities, transportation, food services that help schools focus on their core work of instruction, culture and, student and teacher supports that deliver student academic achievement. 4. Performance and Accountability. Each store is leased space in the mall with a specific agreement that considers a good fit in the mix of stores (specialty, department, etc.) and the potential to sustain financial performance based on brand recognition and reliable customer base. Stores commit upfront to lease payments and timeframes as well as the consequences of missed payments and timelines. When a store misses a payment, the mall does not step in to operate it. It gives a time period for the store to remedy back payment. If default persists, the store loses its lease. Student outcomes are the most important performance standard that should be Copyright 2012 by Landmark Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved. 4|Page

Landmark Consulting Group Conditions and Policies Needed to Create and Sustain High Performing Schools July 27, 2012

expected of all schools. Fiscal stability, health and safety should also have performance and accountability expectations. Likewise, underperforming schools should have clear performance expectations set for them with certain timeframes or risk closure or replacement with another school model and/or operator. Districts and/or intermediaries can mitigate potential failure by choosing school models that have robust replication systems. 5. Vision. The mall sets a level of expectation and vision about the experience for the community and markets this to customers to generate visits. They even have ideas about the types and caliber of stores and restaurants they feel will meet their standards. Recently, education has done a better job of defining the vision college/career readiness and 21st century skills acquisition. Continuing this unwavering focus and communicating effectively about what this means for students, communities and society is the role of districts and/or intermediaries.

An innovation zone states and districts should focus on the WHAT, not the HOW
States and districts need to drastically shift their role to successfully prepare students for college and 21st century careers. Both states and districts need to focus on the outcomes for students what students will be able to do and what will be evidence of those skills and abilities. They need to focus on setting the performance metrics and outcome expectations and systems to hold schools accountable for those results. One effective way to provide this environment with the right conditions is for states and districts to institutionalize an innovation zonea safe place for high performance schools (the how) to exist by clearing away overlapping and/or conflicting policies, legislation, regulations, procedures, and supports that do not align to the goals for their students. In the short term, states and districts need to adopt broad waivers that can remedy the overlaps, conflicts and contradictions, as well as encourage innovation that supports student mastery of knowledge and skills. For the purposes of creating and protecting the innovation zone, certain areas must be regulated to ensure a stable and predictable environment and also to protect the public interest. In the U.S., there is regulation in every industry. If one is opening a coffee shop, operating an airline, or building houses government regulations exist at some level. Consistent across industries is governments detailed regulation in health and safety (building codes, inspections, safety testing of products) as well as transparency (mandated disclosures, registration, audits, accounting and finance reporting standards) to protect the public at a basic level.

Copyright 2012 by Landmark Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

5|Page

Landmark Consulting Group Conditions and Policies Needed to Create and Sustain High Performing Schools July 27, 2012

Government regulatory involvement varies in inputs and outcomes in order to balance freemarket principles with public interest. For example, government would not regulate where a coffee shop purchases its supplies (inputs) but it does have expectations about the quality of the product (outcomes). The Government prior to the Airline Deregulation Act in 1978, regulated airline pricing (inputs), and what routes could be flown (outcomes) because of the industry impact on public travel and commerce. Deregulation occurred because government processes slowed the industrys response to the market. The education industry has high stakes impact on this countrys national security and economic wellbeing and requires a level of regulation to protect public interest. However, too much regulation or the wrong type of regulation has a negative impact on schools ability to serve and respond to the changing needs of students. At a local or state level, implementing an education innovation zone can be a way to use regulation to constructively promote innovation and drive higher student outcomes. It is critical to find the right balance of regulations. For example, having schools with selective enrollment based on socioeconomic status would not be in the public interest and regulations should dictate open enrollment. On the flip side, overstepping regulations can stifle innovation. Dictating curriculum, class schedule, or hiring practices oversteps how high performing schools conduct their business. At the end of this paper there are inputs, outcomes, transparency, and safety and health policies that need appropriate regulations as well as policies that can fast track the launch of an innovation zone and proven high performance national replication school models.

Areas to Be Addressed in Policy, Legislation, Regulation, Procedure, Supports

(See detail in section Getting the Job Done)

Inputs: Student Recruitment, Funding, Human Capital, and Facilities.

This addresses student admissions and recruitment policy and mechanisms, the amount of funding received, how personnel are selected, evaluated, retained, and terminated, and what facilities options are available.
Outcomes: College & Career Readiness/Student Achievement, Fiscal Soundness, and Execution to Plan. This addresses setting the level of student outcomes, expectation for a sound budget, and accountability for implementation of stated plans. Transparency: Governance, Public Records and Open Meetings, Conflicts of Interest, and Contracts. This addresses governance structures, what processes and documents must be public record, disclosure and containment of conflicts of interest, and transparency in evaluation and award of contracts. Health & Safety: Insurance, Safety, Facility Occupancy, and Risk Management. This addresses minimum requirements for obtaining insurance coverage, safety plans, building safety and approvals, and risk management plans.

Copyright 2012 by Landmark Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

6|Page

Landmark Consulting Group Conditions and Policies Needed to Create and Sustain High Performing Schools July 27, 2012 Zone/Zone-Like Efforts

Operating and sustaining the innovation zone

Innovation zones should be setup to produce high performance results and to endure over time. The right leadership, independent governance of the zone and, institutionalized state and/or federal funding that follows the student, are key aspects to address. The innovation zone should have a designated governing body to oversee it. This governing body can be a board established specifically for the zone, or a committee of an existing governing body. A school will be allowed to continue to operate as long as it delivers the results it has promised in its plan and agreement with the governing body. The schools plan will detail its program, how it intends to implement, and the performance results it expects. The governing body should focus on the performance results expectations and the credence of these expectations and it should understand but not evaluate how the school intends to deliver the results. School performance progress should be reviewed annually. Every three to seven years, the governing board evaluates schools based on their performance record and determines whether the school should continue to operate under the existing management or be transitioned to a new management team. Financially, the zone should accomplish its work through a small team paid for with a 12% fee of per pupil funding. Per pupil funding should follow the student. Schools that meet their performance goals are charged 1% of the per pupil amount. New or struggling schools are charged 2% because they receive more supports from the innovation zone.

(Click on the initiative name to go to available web resources) Arkansas Education Renewal Zones Initiative California Los Angeles Belmont Zone of Choice Los Angeles Local School Stabilization & Empowerment Initiative of 2011 Colorado The Innovation Schools Act of 2008 Connecticut Commissioners Network Schools Delaware Partnership Zone Florida Miami-Dade School Improvement Zone Illinois Chicago Renaissance 2010 Initiative Indiana Network Model School Flexibility Waivers Louisiana Recovery School District Maryland Baltimore Innovation Schools Massachusetts Boston Pilot Schools Commonwealth Pilot Schools Michigan Education Achievement System Detroit Public Schools Self-Governing Schools Minnesota District-Created Site-Governed Public Schools DeKruif School Innovation Zone Bill New York New York City Small Schools of Choice New York City iZone North Carolina Charlotte-Mecklenburgs Achievement Zone Pennsylvania Philadelphia Renaissance Schools Tennessee Achievement District West Virginia Schools Innovation Zones Act of 2009

Copyright 2012 by Landmark Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

7|Page

Landmark Consulting Group Conditions and Policies Needed to Create and Sustain High Performing Schools July 27, 2012

What is the end state?

Every community and neighborhood can have high performing schools that successfully prepare all students for college and the 21st century workplace. These high performing schools will engage students in rigorous learning and meaningful relationships that keep students from dropping out. Ultimately, this will reduce the social safety net and criminal justice system burden on communities and create a qualified workforce which is essential to economic vitality and global competitiveness. It will take focused action to remove material policy, regulatory, procedural, resource, and support barriers that hinder opening and operating successful schools. There is evidence of this starting to occur at a massive scale. Within a six year period, the turnaround effort in New York City delivered promising results because of the conditions that were established but also because multiple parties worked together - the mayor, the superintendent, the unions, communities, businesses, non-profits and local and national philanthropists. The District/Charter Collaboration Compact initiative sponsored by the Gates Foundation has potential for setting the right conditions for effective practice to scale widely. For other communities to realize similar academic improvement, cooperation and collegiality will be essential. Even with these significant efforts and promising results, there are gaps in providing the right conditions for implementing high performance school models with fidelity. More needs to be done. Together, states, communities, districts and high performing school models need to develop and implement the conditions, define the performance metrics and share the effective practices that support and sustain high performance through school board and superintendent changes, and mayor and governor terms. Foundations and corporate sponsors need to provide support for more promising school models to codify the key components and elements of their model that result in student achievement. Foundations and corporate sponsors also need to provide support for more promising school models to design replication systems that will ensure quality replication at a much greater frequency and scale. Key community, district and foundation leaders need to build their capacity about high performance school models by visiting them and spending time with students to see and hear how their learning experiences are different. The Mall of America was not a remodel or adaptation of an existing dilapidated shopping center. It was a deliberate design with handpicked store partners for an end state vision of what was needed and desired by consumers. Similarly in education, each community needs bold, deliberate will, action, and leadership to create an environment in which proven high performing schools can exist and focus on their core job of helping each student achieve at high levels. Our young people deserve the change now rather than 10 years from now. It is time to act!

Getting the Job Done

A number of efforts around the country are working toward creating the right conditions. For example, in Indiana, network model schools have a blanket waiver from much of education code that automatically applies to any school that adopts and commits to implementing a reputable school model Copyright 2012 by Landmark Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved. 8|Page

Landmark Consulting Group Conditions and Policies Needed to Create and Sustain High Performing Schools July 27, 2012

with fidelity. Another example is in Los Angeles, where the school district and the teachers union reached a joint agreement that grants schools within the initiative a higher degree of autonomy and governance as well as provides modified labor agreements that give more control to the school and its teachers. On the other hand, there are a number of Zone and Partnership efforts that simply are enabling legislation that give districts the authority to create a zone but do not actually result in the creation of the zone or defined conditions.

Remedies in Policy, Legislation, Regulation, Procedures, and Supports

The following are specific issues that policymakers and education leaders can address to support and sustain innovation zones. Inputs Area Typical barrier issues Remedies in Policy, Legislation, Regulation, Procedure, Supports Open enrollment (state or metro region) with no admission requirements. Blind random lottery if there is waiting list. Zone schools should have the option to opt (but not mandated) into a zonewide common enrollment system and calendar and schedule. Schools opting not to participate in the common enrollment system, calendar, and schedule own their marketing and student recruitment risk as well as scheduling risks related to intersecting with other schools programs and district services. Zone schools should have no recruitment restrictions. Other public schools are expected to cooperate and treat zone schools on an equal basis by supplying family contact information, participating in zone school events, and widely distributing recruitment materials to students and families. Schools are required to accept Special Education students, have access to full State and Federal Special Education funding, and access special education services for a set fee schedule provided by the certified District, County, Regional Service Centers, or Private providers.

Student Recruitment and Admissions

Attendance zone boundaries prohibit students from attending school of choice. Admission policies (e.g. magnet) allow schools to serve only students they want. District policies restrict zone school recruitment and marketing from district feeder schools. District policies mandate a common school calendar/schedule and require use of the common enrollment system for all schools Unclear, poorly defined, or restrictive policies and process for Special Education students.

Copyright 2012 by Landmark Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

9|Page

Landmark Consulting Group Conditions and Policies Needed to Create and Sustain High Performing Schools July 27, 2012

Funding

Funding does not follow student. District budgets are dependent on a significant % of revenue per pupil and they charge fees but provide inadequate or no services. Districts or states may require schools to buy certain services and products regardless of whether the school desires them or not. For example, a district buys curriculum and mandates all schools use it and use their textbook dollars for it. The school does not use that curriculum. Schools need capital for startup and ramp-up.

Per pupil funding directly to zone schools from the State. Schools should have individual school codes assigned by the state. Districts and other public education entities (service providers) may provide services to zone schools at the schools option. Service providers must provide their services on a negotiated contract fee basis and compete equally with other service providers. Zone schools may not be charged fees that are different from other district schools. Blanket waivers to ensure that in no case, shall a district or public education entity mandate that a school receive and pay for a service or product. The Zone may collect a negotiated % to operate common area zone services. School site has sole authority for its budget and use of funds subject to certain grant funding restrictions. Waiver from all funding restrictions. State and region provides both early stage planning, late stage planning, and launch grants. Funding should bias toward school teams adopting proven whole school models or extremely strong new innovations.

Human Capital

Districts policies and labor contracts severely restrict use of time/scheduling, compensation, performance evaluation, and hiring and firing process. Schools may train all their teachers around a specific school model or curriculum just to have most of the teachers bumped by teachers with seniority and from outside the school.

Zone schools obtain zone-wide waivers, exemptions and/or collaborative district/union agreements that provide the following flexibility from district policy and labor contract requirements: 1. Bumping rights to maintain the integrity of the school team. 2. Specific usage requirements of minutes within the school schedule.

Copyright 2012 by Landmark Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

10 | Page

Landmark Consulting Group Conditions and Policies Needed to Create and Sustain High Performing Schools July 27, 2012

3. Restrictions preventing the school site collective leadership team (which may include teachers) to have sole authority of hiring and firing team members. Facilities Schools do not have ready access to facilities and facilities renovation funds that are suited for innovative school models. Per pupil facilities funding to assist facilities costs. Ability for schools to own or lease private sector facilities as long as they meet building and safety standards equivalent to private schools. Property tax exemption for facilities that are either substantially used for school facilities (more than 75%) whether the school holds title or not. For properties where the school is a minority tenant, then property tax exemption is prorated based on the percent of use.

Outcomes Area Typical barrier issues Remedies in Policy, Legislation, Regulation, Procedure, Supports Sets clear community and region goals and attainment expectations around college readiness (80+% of students qualify for 4 year college without remediation). Expectation of minimum 1 year student academic growth per year at grade level and 1.5 year student growth behind grade level on proficiency rates as assessed using common core standards or more rigorous. Evidenced by rigorous plan submitted by school. Assessment of deeper learning (21st century skills) and attainment goals clear in school plans. Thresholds of student attrition and dropout to be no more than 5% overall transfer (out of region) and dropout per year unless justified by school plan and approved by zone. Copyright 2012 by Landmark Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved. 11 | Page

College and Career Readiness

Unclear goals. Mandatory use of interim assessment systems and pacing guides. No room for alternative measures both formative and summative. Ability to game system through student attrition, changing rigor of coursework and/or changing grade promotion and graduation standards.

Landmark Consulting Group Conditions and Policies Needed to Create and Sustain High Performing Schools July 27, 2012

Failure to meet required zone goals and achievement goals as committed in school plan for 3 consecutive years results in probationary status and termination of school contract after 5 consecutive years. Fiscal Soundness A huge risk in the long term stability of a school is being able to operate with a balanced budget. Fluctuating enrollment challenges balanced budgets in new and transformed schools. Schools submit their plans but may not follow through on execution of those plans. Schools should be required to submit sound budgets that are balanced with a 3-5% contingency reserve and they should account for projected funding increases or reductions. Schools should have enrollment targets and always meet them. Accountable to execute their plans and to deliver results stated in plans.

Execution to Plan

Transparency Area Typical barrier issues Remedies in Policy, Legislation, Regulation, Procedure, Supports Schools must declare a specific governance structure with bylaws adopting this structure. All board members and senior management team backgrounds and contact information should be available to the zone. All board members must receive annual board certification training that reviews their responsibilities and updates them on any changes of laws, regulations, and policies. Public Records and Open Meetings Schools may not provide an acceptable level of transparency about their decision making and their plans. Schools must be held to the same level of transparency required by public entities including open meeting requirements, and public record requirements or as required of a 501(c) 3, whichever is greater. Schools must comply with public entity conflict of 12 | Page

Governance

The organizational structure and governance of a school organization (boards, organizational chart) is not articulated and transparent.

Conflicts of

Schools may not disclose or be

Copyright 2012 by Landmark Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

Landmark Consulting Group Conditions and Policies Needed to Create and Sustain High Performing Schools July 27, 2012

Interest

transparent about conflicts of interest that may be impacting their decision making. Schools may be required to utilize district data systems and reporting requirements that are cumbersome to use, not a good fit for school needs, and duplicative of other state-level reporting systems.

interest laws and policies. Schools are required to disclose conflicts of interest of their school leadership team and board of directors. Schools should comply with State-level student and financial performance reporting requirements that all schools and districts should comply to. Schools should have access to a specifically defined waiver process when a data reporting requirement can be demonstrated as not applicable and material to judge the schools performance. Waiver for schools to be able to pursue their own procurement channels. Provide access to various state and other public entity procurement contracts. Waiver to allow schools to pursue sole source for professional development, curriculum, instructional tools, school model fees. Schools to be allowed to use procurement processes standard for 501(c) 3 non-profits.

Student and Financial Performance Data

Contracts

Schools may be encumbered with difficult and costly procurement processes by the district.

Health and Safety Area Typical barrier issues

Remedies in Policy, Legislation, Regulation, Procedure, Supports Schools must obtain insurance policies that have minimum policy limits as required typically by school districts. Schools may obtain insurance from any insurer, self-insurance pool, joint powers authority whose underlying insurance is A.M. Best Rated A- or better. Schools are required to submit and file a safety plan that has been reviewed by a school safety professional.

Insurance

Schools are mandated as to where they purchase insurance and do not have a choice even if the same or improved coverage can be purchased at a lower price.

Safety

Districts impose safety plans on schools even though much of the safety plans may need significant adaptation to be useful and

Copyright 2012 by Landmark Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

13 | Page

Landmark Consulting Group Conditions and Policies Needed to Create and Sustain High Performing Schools July 27, 2012

effective. Facility Occupancy Schools are often restricted to occupy buildings certified for public school use and cannot occupy commercial building spaces or private school spaces even if a use permit could be obtained. Schools operated by non-profits may have property tax apply to their facilities---especially if leased from a private source. Risk Management Schools may not perform reviews of their risks in thorough and timely manner. Schools may occupy any public or private facility as long as they can obtain an occupancy permit for use of the location as a school. Buildings that are used substantially (over 75%) for schools should have an automatic property tax exemption for the entire property. If the school is co-located on a property with other non-school organizations, the property should have a prorated tax exemption based on the actual amount of the building leased to a school. Schools must provide evidence of a risk management review process along with establishment of a safety committee that meets at least 4 times per year. Policies for sexual abuse, molestation, and harassment, corporal punishment, conflicts of interest must be adopted by the governing board of the school.

District Services
Districts, County Offices of Education, and Regional Service Centers provide their schools numerous services including special education, school meals, transportation, financial and student information systems, business management, facilities maintenance, professional development, and procurement just to name a few. On the positive side, many of these providers deliver cost-efficient and effective services to their schools. However, many providers are not the best option in terms of value for a school (quality of service, timeliness, and cost). Zone schools should never be forced to utilize any of these services. However, it is to the providers interest to offer these services at a fair predictable price and with a service-level quality guarantee. Zone schools individually or as a group of schools should be able to negotiate and contract in good faith with the providers to obtain these services. There are a few areas, such as a common student information system or transportation system, that it may make sense to require use. In this case, zone schools should have a democratic process where a majority (e.g. twothirds) of zone schools endorse a defined set of requirements, policies, and contracts for these specific services.

Copyright 2012 by Landmark Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

14 | Page

Landmark Consulting Group Conditions and Policies Needed to Create and Sustain High Performing Schools July 27, 2012

Accelerate the launch of an innovation zone

Creating the right conditions to protect and sustain high performing schools requires removing barriers that prevent quality schools from launching quickly. The following are the most critical areas to address: Area Startup funding Initiative/Program Creation of a program that aggregates various startup loans and grant funding that are sufficient for a school launch or re-launch (e.g. $1.5M to $3.0M per school) Creation of a portfolio of loan programs to finance expansions, growth, and cash flow. Schools must have sufficient financial capability to pay loans with no defaults. A critical loan program to finance cash flow if there are any state revenue deferrals. If a school site (non-charter or charter) is partnering with a national replication school model provider that has been pre-approved by the zone, then the school can obtain 3-6 month authorization upon: (a) Assurance that the school will implement the school model with fidelity and verification by school model provider. (b) Review of budgets for fiscal soundness and stabilityincluding achievability of enrollment targets. (c) Review of governance, school leadership team for sufficient expertise with validation by school model provider. If there are deficiencies in the school proposal, the following are the options: (a) School can be requested to go through full application process (b) School can be conditionally approved pending resolution of specified issues which will be verified and does not need to revisit formal approval. (c) School has to demonstrate resolution of specific issues and must resubmit proposal for formal approval. All of the above should be coordinated by the zone among all agencies that have jurisdiction over a school approval. These could include charter school authorizers, districts, school boards, state board of education, etc. Facilities funding Creation of a range of facilities funding programs that can be used to acquire, construct, and renovate facilities using bond financing as well as other sources of public and private funding. The zone should have a single point contact that helps the zone schools navigate the 15 | Page

Operating funding

Fast track authorization

Single point

Copyright 2012 by Landmark Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

Landmark Consulting Group Conditions and Policies Needed to Create and Sustain High Performing Schools July 27, 2012

zone contact Student recruitment marketing Community engagement

process and coordinate with appropriate agencies and support providers. The zone provides marketing materials and recruitment support for all zone schools and develops recruitment agreements with various feeder schools and/or districts.

Although the responsibility of community engagement ultimately resides with the local school team, the zone cultivates community support by formally introducing school leaders to community leaders and parents for support and partnerships. The zone provides advocacy support and connections to internships, higher education, parent groups, faith-based groups, etc. Zone can directly establish, recruit, and/or cultivate one or more back office support providers for accounting, compliance, procurement, special education, and other services to zone schools. These services are not mandatory and must be of high quality and at competitive prices. Partner with higher education to establish a pipeline of local principal and teachers. Partner with human capital organizations who are familiar with the zones endorsed school models and can proactively identify national candidates to lead and teach at zone schools. Create a 2 tier review process that occurs once every 3 years. Each year, the school will be required to submit a performance report that details the stated performance goals from the prior year and where the school met, surpassed, or missed the goals. At 3 years, if a school has materially met stated goals regarding academic achievement and finances and has no material changes that increase the schools risk, then the school automatically obtains another 3 year renewal. The zone verifies school supplied information about material goals met. If any material goals are not met, then school must provide a plan subject to agreement by the zone and/or authorizer. The school is placed on probation and re-evaluated in 24 months. Depending on the seriousness of the issues, the plan must state when the school will be re-evaluated at a more frequent interval. If the school misses material performance goals a 2nd time, then the school is subject to closure within 24 months unless the school is able to meet performance goals within that timeframe. If the school is subject to closure, then the zone will find another school team (principal and teachers) and/or another school model provider to replace the school.

Back office support

Human capital support

School Reauthorization and Renewal

Copyright 2012 by Landmark Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

16 | Page

Landmark Consulting Group Conditions and Policies Needed to Create and Sustain High Performing Schools July 27, 2012

Other Whitepapers Available Related To This Topic

Concept Paper: Model Neutral CMO Model Neutral Charter School Management Organization Platform as a Strategy to Support High Quality Growth

Coming soon! 2012 Guide to Promising School Models A comparative guide to national school models for school intervention efforts

Brief: The Cost Effectiveness of Small Schools How small schools can lower the cost per graduate within a community as a measure of educational effectiveness.

Free download at www.ConsultLandmark.org

Copyright 2012 by Landmark Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

17 | Page

Landmark Consulting Group Conditions and Policies Needed to Create and Sustain High Performing Schools July 27, 2012

About Landmark Consulting Group, Inc.

Founded in 1988, Landmark Consulting Group helps create, launch, and grow high impact education organizations, projects, and programs that are of high quality, innovative, sustainable, and scalable. Our clients have created or transformed 1,100 schools, have impacted the lives of over 360,000 students, and have raised over $150 million in philanthropic support. We have worked and supported more high performance school models and school networks than anyone in the country.

For school organizations, we can help codify school or program model, design and implement an effective replication system, plan for quality growth that is sustainable, and/or help you improve the fidelity and quality of implementation across schools. Partnering with our team will help you launch smoothly and with quality. For communities, local foundations, intermediaries, cities, states, and local school districts, we can provide assessment services of existing conditions; help draft supportive policies; and cultivate support for high performance schools.

Contact Us
For additional information, visit our web site at www.consultlandmark.org or contact: Ted Fujimoto (tedf@consultlandmark.org / 916-769-2417) Kyle Miller (kylem@consultlandmark.org / 909-529-2066)

Ted Fujimoto - Founder/President

Ted Fujimoto is an experienced entrepreneur

and consultant in organizational performance, development, scaling, and business planning. He has helped develop business strategies for many education organizations including Bay Area Coalition for Essential Schools, Big Picture Learning, New Technology Foundation, Alliance for College-Ready Public Schools, Partnerships for Uplifting Communities, Linking Education & Economic Development, California Charter Schools Association, and the New York Charter Schools Association - representing more than $150 million in funding. As a freshman in college, Ted founded and operated for eleven years a management and technology consulting company serving a range of customers including AirTouch Communications, Bank One, Chandon Estates, California Chamber of Commerce, GM, IBM, New York Times, and Remy Martin. He Copyright 2012 by Landmark Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved. 18 | Page

Landmark Consulting Group Conditions and Policies Needed to Create and Sustain High Performing Schools July 27, 2012

was an equity partner in the consulting firm that developed the retail concept for Saturn Auto Company and re-engineered the retail networks of 11 automotive and hospitality brands. As a community business leader, Ted helped to design and found the highly regarded Napa New Technology High School and the New Technology Foundation, which was acquired by KnowledgeWorks and as New Tech Network, is creating schools across the country. He also managed the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Carnegie Foundation grants for education reform initiatives in the Sacramento region. He served on the California Education Technology Advisory Committee and received the 2002 Center for Digital Government "In the Arena" award for education leadership in transforming vision to reality. In Converge Magazines "1999 Year in Review", Ted was named one of "Educations Dreamers, Leaders and Innovators." He currently serves as Chairman of the Supervisory Committee at the California Credit Union, a $1.4 billion credit union serving the education community.

Kyle A. Miller, Senior Consultant

Kyle Miller is an analytical, collaborative and

influential professional experienced in building strategic initiatives, programs and partnerships. Kyle earned a Master of Arts in Not-for-Profit Leadership from Seattle University and a B.S. in Business from Skidmore College. She has a passion for social justice and responsibility, and equity of access and outcomes for the disenfranchised. Kyle has demonstrated strengths in systems thinking, strategic problem-solving, leadership coaching and fostering consensus understanding. Kyle Miller served as Senior Program Officer with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for six years. Kyle was instrumental in the development of education investments designed to reduce the national high school dropout rate and to increase college readiness and completion of low-income students. Through her landmark work, Kyle invested over $200M to help leaders accomplish systemic social and academic equity outcomes for at-risk students. She designed processes that energized education leaders and communities to have higher expectations for their students, to operationalize a new vision, and to initiate collaborative, productive practices and procedures focused on measurable impact. Kyle established her ability to build strategic community partnerships in her work as Senior Program Manager with the Alliance for Education. She intentionally combined the expertise of industry, not-forprofits and education to link community resources and support to priority initiatives of Seattle Public Schools. During her five years of employment in Nordstrom Corporate Operations, Kyle proved that organizational titles and positions, while relevant, were not as important as relationships built on common values. She successfully persuaded highly autonomous regional managers to implement efficiency programs which were managed corporately and which improved the companys overall financial health and environmental stewardship. Copyright 2012 by Landmark Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved. 19 | Page