RI Educator Autonomy Draft Report v.6

COVER
Pathways to Understanding, Supporting and Increasing
Educator Autonomy in Rhode Island
Recommendations from the
Educator Autonomy Working Group
Picture (s)
THIS DRAFT VERSION IS FOR REVIEW ONLY BY
MEMBERS OF THE EDUCATOR AUTONOMY
WORKING GROUP – PLEASE DO NOT DISSEMINATE.
Our mission is to support Rhode Island's efforts to create a world-class education
system by working with all stakeholders to design recommendations to the
Governor to improve student achievement through increased local autonomy.
August 2014

2
(inside front cover)
Blank or with pictures
Include any publishing data or appropriate credits here

3
Pathways to Understanding, Supporting and Increasing
Educator Autonomy in Rhode Island
Recommendations from the
Educator Autonomy Working Group

5
Contents
Introduction Letter from Co-Chairs
Members of the Educator Autonomy Working Group
Introduction to the Educator Autonomy Working Group’s Mission and Process
Recommendations for understanding supporting and increasing educator autonomy
in Rhode Island
Recommendation 1:
Increase awareness of the existing autonomies at the district and school level
in Rhode Island.
Recommendation 2:
Provide the training, support, and resources to educational leaders necessary
to carry out effective and successful practices in an autonomous structure.
Recommendation 3:
Create a clear path for existing local education authorities and their schools
to operationalize autonomy in areas such as, but not limited to; budget,
curriculum, instruction and assessment, governance, staffing and
scheduling/calendar/school hours.
Conclusion
Appendices
Appendix A: Education Autonomy Research Summary
Appendix B: External Interview Summary
Appendix C: Brief Background of Rhode Island Public Education
Appendix D: Exploring Autonomy in Education
Appendix E: Glossary
Appendix F: Conditions Required for Effective Autonomy

7
Dear Governor Chaffee
From the co-chairs: Yanaiza Gallant and Pat Page
Note: The letter will be composed by the co-chairs with input from the members at
their July 2014 meeting.

8
Members of the Educator Autonomy Working Group
Ron Beaupre, Pawtucket teacher and President, Pawtucket Teachers' Alliance
Karen Castagno, Interim Dean, Feinstein School of Education and Human
Development, Rhode Island College
Susan Chin, Principal, Veazie Street Elementary School, Providence
Rob DeBlois, Director, Urban Collaborative Accelerated Program
Tim Duffy, Executive Director, Rhode Island Association of School Committees
Yanaiza Gallant, co-chair, Principal Intern at the Burrillville Middle School and the
2012 Rhode Island Milken Educator Award Winner
Deborah A. Gist, Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education
Patrick A. Guida, Vice-Chair, Board of Education
Pierre LaPerriere, Vice President and Director of Human Resources, Gilbane, Inc.
Valerie Lawson, East Providence teacher and Vice President, National Education
Association of Rhode Island
Robert O'Brien, Superintendent, Smithfield Public Schools
Patricia Page, co-chair, East Greenwich teacher and 2014 Rhode Island Teacher of
the Year
Rick M. Quiles, Pediatrician, Park Pediatrics, Cranston
Julian Santiago, Senior, Dr. Jorge Alvarez High School, Providence
Carolyn Sheehan, Director, Blackstone Academy
Alan J. Tenreiro, Principal, Cumberland High School

9
Introduction to the Educator Autonomy Working Group’s Mission and Process
Context and Mission
Significant school improvement efforts are already under way in Rhode Island – but
these efforts alone are not enough to create a system of world-class learning
environments for Rhode Island students, who are the future of our state. In
December 2013, as a next step in transforming education in Rhode Island, Governor
Lincoln Chafee established the Educator Autonomy Working Group , to develop
specific recommendations on how to increase autonomy for Rhode Island districts,
schools, and educators.
Research has shown that the most critical factor in determining student
achievement is the effectiveness of the classroom teacher. The most recent
education efforts (Common Core State Standards and new assessments, educator
evaluation systems, beginning teacher induction programs.) have involved teachers
in their development, yet these initiatives have emanated from the state level. As
these latest efforts become ingrained in the educational system, attention needs to
shift to how to unleash innovation in the classroom through more autonomy and
collaboration at the educator level and through the enhancement of teaching as a
profession.
The mission of the Educator Autonomy Working Group (EAWG) is to support Rhode
Island's efforts to create a world-class education system by working with all
stakeholders to design recommendations to the Governor to improve student
achievement through increased local autonomy and innovation.
Core Principles
The design and execution of the Educator Autonomy Working Group project was
guided by three core principles that we believe are key to our deliberations on
educator autonomy:
 Student learning and success is paramount.
 Educators want what is best for students.
 Decisions should be made as close to the student as is practical and effective.
These principles were developed during the group’s first work session and then
included on every agenda and reviewed at every session to ensure that our work
reflected these principles in all that was discussed and decided.
Stakeholder and Expert Participation
To create the most robust set of recommendations for increasing local autonomy,
there was focused effort to ensure the process had broad input and was highly
transparent. The EAWG members were thoughtfully selected to ensure that all
stakeholders would have voice in the process. Stakeholder groups represented
included students, parents, teachers, principals, superintendents, teachers unions,

10
Board of Education, post-secondary education, school committees, the business
community, the Governor’s office and the Rhode Island Department of Education
(RIDE). Within this group of stakeholders, the objective was to select diverse
members in terms of geography, size of district, gender and race. At various
junctures in the process, members were specifically asked to reach out to those they
represented for input or feedback. Given the educator focus, the leadership of the
working group was intentionally placed in the hands of two award-winning
teachers: Yanaiza Gallant, Principal Intern at the Burrillville Middle School and the
2012 Rhode Island Milken Educator Award Winner and Patricia Page, East
Greenwich teacher and 2014 Rhode Island Teacher of the Year.
To draw on expertise outside of the EAWG members, a literary scan of current
research and a round of interviews with external experts were conducted. Guest
speakers also shared their experiences in the area of educator autonomy. The
Education Autonomy Research Summary in Appendix A and the External Interview
Summary in Appendix B provide further information on the results of these efforts.
There was a firm belief that all work sessions and materials should be open to the
public so that the process was not only participatory, but transparent. All work
session dates and locations were posted and open to the public. Each work session
had approximately 7 – 20 members of the public present. As well, a publically
available website was maintained (http://edtonomy.weebly.com) with up-to-date
materials.
Phases of Work and Areas Explored
The EAWG’s work was accomplished through monthly in-person sessions from
December 2013 through July 2014. Additionally, assignments were completed in-
between work sessions. Graph 1 depicts the EAWG’s approach to phases of work

11
The initial planning phase that took place from September through November, as
well as the work session preparation and facilitation were conducted by a planning
team that included the working groups’ co-chairs, RIDE staff, and a
parent/community volunteer. The objective of the planning phase was to ensure the
working group members were prepared with appropriate expectations and
adequate background material1 and research to support robust and informed
discussions that would lead to effective recommendations. The content and process
of work sessions was designed by the planning team using feedback from each work
session and resulted in following three phases of work:
Phase 1: Understanding Autonomy
The EAWG explored the meaning of autonomy in education in general, specifically
as it relates to curriculum and instruction and also through several international
and domestic examples2. It became clear that autonomy in education has a wide
variety of interpretations, approaches and levels of success. For our work as the
EAWG, autonomy is defined as the freedom to make professional decisions in an
1
Please see Appendix C Brief Background of Rhode Island Public Education.
2
Please see Appendix D Exploring Autonomy in Education.
Planning Phase
Sept. – Nov.
Phase 1:
Understanding
Autonomy
Dec. – Feb.
Phase 2:
Exploring Models of
Autonomy
March - April
Phase 3:
Developing
Recommendations
May - July
Graphic 1:
Educator Autonomy Working Group: Phases of Work

12
educational setting3. Even within Rhode Island, while there is a general
understanding of autonomy, members of the working group had different
understandings about who made specific educational decisions even within their
local district.
Research showed that all over the world, countries, states and districts are
experimenting with ways in which decision-making can be made closer to the
student while improving the quality and consistency of academic outcomes.
However, research found that increasing local autonomy did not immediately
translate to improved student success; it must be created through a thoughtful
process that involved building trust, appropriate training and accountability
measures and a degree of insulation from policy and leadership changes that may
affect levels of autonomy4.
There was clear alignment amongst the work group members that educator quality
is the most important school factor in student success and that those closest to the
students are most aware of the students’ specific needs. During the in-depth
exploration of the context of educator autonomy over curriculum and assessment,
the key barriers identified to moving autonomy closer to the student were a lack of
adequate and flexible time for educators (i.e., teachers and principals) to collaborate
and conduct research, funding to support training or additional time, and
organizational support that allows teachers the latitude to differentiate curriculum
and assessment to meet students’ learning needs.
The EAWG completed this research phase of the project having spent significant
time gaining a better understanding of the both the definition and nuances of
autonomy, and a belief that we must understand how different approaches operate
prior to making recommendations.
Phase 2: Exploring Models of Autonomy
During Phase 2 of the EAWG’s work, several models of autonomy (Fulton County
Georgia, Massachusetts, and Los Angeles Unified School District) were studied and
three guest speakers from Massachusetts were brought in to share their experiences
at the state, district, and school level. Discussions ranged from the differing
philosophical approaches to how those approaches translated to activities in the
classroom.
General themes included the notion that autonomy is complex, but holds promise if
implemented well and that leadership and training matter. Additionally, there is not
one “right” approach to autonomy; however, certain conditions exist where
autonomy is most successful – trust, collaboration and clear accountability.
3
Please see Appendix E Glossary for additional terms defined.
4
Please see Appendix A Education Autonomy Research Summary and Appendix B
Summary of External Interviews.

13
Phase 3:Developing Recommendations
The final phase integrated the outside research, work-session discussions and local
context to craft a set of interrelated recommendations to move autonomy as close to
the student as is practical and effective in Rhode Island. The EAWG developed a
glossary5 for specific terms used in shaping the recommendations and agreed on a
set of conditions6 that were needed to support autonomous practices and decision-
making. The process included the drafting of straw recommendations and small-
group work to discuss, debate and revise these straw recommendations into final
recommendations. The final piece of work that the EAWG undertook was to develop
a strategy for how to best position their recommendations for implementation.
5
Please see Appendix E Glossary.
6
Please see Appendix F Conditions Required for Effective Autonomy.

14
Recommendations for understanding, supporting and increasing educator
autonomy in Rhode Island
The EAWG created three interrelated recommendations that we believe that if fully
implemented, will significantly improve student success.
Recommendation one addresses an essential step for thoughtfully increasing
educator autonomy in Rhode Island. The EAWG recommends that autonomy at all
levels (state, district and local) be clearly understood and documented. A system
must also be in place to ensure that as autonomy shifts, those changes are captured,
documented and shared with all stakeholders. This will allow educators at all levels
to take advantage of existing autonomy that may currently be unclear.
Recommendation two advocates for fiscal support for two key elements of an
effective system of autonomy: appropriate training and additional time for
collaboration. Training should be specific for each type of educator to intentionally
prepare them to make decisions knowledgably given the context of their individual
education environment. Further, time to collaborate is essential for implementing
autonomous strategies well. Research indicated that both time and training will
ensure that existing autonomy is implemented effectively.
The third recommendation identifies how to use this clearly-identified foundation of
existing, effective autonomy and move decision-making in both broad and specific
ways closer to the student. This recommendation involves additional research to be
done by a new group to identify statutory and regulatory changes that may be
needed to allow for more autonomy for all schools in Rhode Island, as well as
potentially identifying a clear path for an individual school to become more
autonomous.
Recommendation One
Increase awareness of the existing autonomies at the district7 and school level in
Rhode Island.
This may be accomplished by: (a) communicating and reaching out to educators and
policy makers; (b) developing a series of forums co-hosted by key stakeholders; (c)
identifying and documenting existing autonomies; and (d) sharing findings and
continuous revisions to ensure all are aware.
This is necessary because there are varying degrees of understanding of what levels
of autonomy educators already have in Rhode Island, and a baseline understanding
is required to assess the merits of future autonomy. The actual autonomy given to
principals and teachers varies tremendously throughout the state. Our discussions
revealed that in Rhode Island there are varying degrees of acceptance, delegation,
and implementation of autonomy on a school and district basis.
7
Districts include charter schools.

15
In putting forth this recommendation, we hope that all levels of the education
system will engage in serious dialogue around developing a deep understanding of
the autonomy that currently exists within the Rhode Island educational system as
well as examining the barriers that prevent autonomous practices being
implemented. The suggested ideas for accomplishing the recommendation go
beyond merely producing a pamphlet or guidance document; rather the various
suggested ideas require all stakeholders to participate in developing venues that
increase awareness.
Recommendation Two
Provide the training, support, and resources to educational leaders (including
teachers) necessary to carry out effective and successful practices in an autonomous
structure.
This may be accomplished by: (a) defining the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of
educational leaders in an autonomous setting, as indicated by a needs assessment
analysis of effective practices; (b) developing formal professional development
forums; (c) partnering with organizations including, but not limited to, higher
education to prepare educational leaders on autonomous practices; (d) securing
sustainable fiscal investments to support autonomy.
We believe this is necessary because research, interviews with experts, and
experiences of practitioners carrying out autonomy practices stressed need for pre-
and in-service training and support. In our work session with Massachusetts
educators who had been engaged in various autonomy models and practices for
over 10 years, they emphasized that this was essential to success.
In putting forth this recommendation, we believe that all stakeholders at every level
of the educational system must invest in the needed professional development
required to implement autonomous practices effectively. This will require a re-
examination of fiscal resources that currently exist at the state, district, and school
level to see if they can be realigned to support strengthening educator autonomy.
Further stakeholders will need to work together to seek additional private and
public funding that supports educator autonomy.
Recommendation Three
Create a clear path for existing local education authorities and their schools to
operationalize autonomy in areas such as, but not limited to, budget, curriculum,
instruction and assessment, governance, staffing and scheduling/calendar/school
hours.
This may be accomplished by: (a) creating a workgroup that includes district, state
and union leaders to examine existing legislation and regulatory state frameworks
to identify areas that foster or inhibit autonomy; (b) incorporate findings from

16
recommendations 1 and 2 in the development of an action plan to remove or
mitigate barriers to autonomy that have been identified; (c) exploring the
development of a specific pathway for individual schools to become more
autonomous.
We believe this is necessary because in other states both legislation and regulations
have been successful in providing a foundation for autonomous decision-making to
be supported at the state, district, and school level. The time-frame and the
composition of the EAWG group was not sufficient for conducting a thorough
legislative and regulatory review and drafting either new legislation or making
recommendations to existing regulations. Also, both our research and interviews
with various experts across the country indicated the benefit of having a strong
legislative framework for supporting autonomous decision-making closest to the
student as practical.
[NOTE: Being able to add next steps on strategy of getting this recommendation
implemented will be discussed at the July meeting]
Taken together, the EAWG firmly believes that educators will have the opportunity
to become more innovative and effective through increased autonomy closer to the
student. We believe that our recommendations will clarify, support and increase
autonomy at all levels within the Rhode Island educational system resulting in
significantly increases in the necessary conditions for student success.
The EAWG strongly encourages Governor Chafee and the entire Rhode Island
education system to act swiftly and decisively to implement these
recommendations. The students of Rhode Island cannot afford to wait.
Conclusion
Based on input at the July meeting, we will add a conclusion.

17
Appendices
Appendix A: Education Autonomy Research Summary
Appendix B: External Interview Summary
Appendix C: Brief Background of Rhode Island Education
Appendix D Exploring Autonomy in Education
Appendix E: Glossary
Appendix F: Conditions Required for Effective Autonomy

18
Appendix A
Educator Autonomy Research Summary
NOTE: This appendix needs to be formatted and will be added to the final document.

19
Appendix B
External Interview Summary
Overview
In the fall of 2013, Rhode Island Governor, Lincoln Chafee, appointed 17 members to
serve on an Educator Autonomy Working Group (EAWG). The mission of the EAWG
is to support Rhode Island's efforts to create a world-class education system by
working with all stakeholders to design recommendations to the Governor to
improve student achievement through increased local autonomy and innovation.
To provide input for the EAWG, the planning team conducted a series of interviews
with 18 educational leaders including both practitioners and academics (see below
for a list of interviewees).
This summary represents the findings from these interviews and is being provided
to the EAWG as input as they prepare to craft recommendations to the Governor.
Interview Process
To ensure consistency in the interview process, the following format was followed
for each interview:
 Initial contact of each interviewee was made through Commissioner Deborah
A. Gist. The Commissioner explained the Educator Autonomy Project and the
role the interviews would have in examining autonomy issues. As well,
potential interviewees were made aware that their information would be
shared in summary only and information would not be attributed to specific
individuals.
 Once the interviewee agreed to the interview, background information on
Rhode Island and the list of interview questions below were sent to provide
context for the interview.
 Interviews were generally 30 – 45 minute phone calls with the interviewee.
One or more members of the planning team were present for each of the
interviews calls.
Interviewees included:
Darling-Hammond, Linda Faculty, Graduate School of Education, Stanford
University
Deasy, John Superintendent, Los Angeles Public Schools, California
Farris-Berg, Kim Author, Trusting Teachers with School Success-What
Happens When Teachers Call the Shots
Grier, Terry Superintendent, Houston Independent School District,
Texas
Hanushek, Eric Senior Fellow, Hoover Institute, Stanford University
Hess, Rick (Fredrick) Resident Scholar and Director of Education Policy
Studies, American Enterprise Institute
Jackson, Dean Educator from New Zealand

20
Jensen, Ben Author, The Myth of Markets in School Education
Meier, Deborah Senior Scholar, New York University Steinhardt School
and Founder of The Mission Hill School
Kingsland, Neerav CEO, New Schools for New Orleans, Louisiana
Lee, Saeyun Policy Director, Executive Office of Education,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
McGrath, Daniel Chief, International Activities Branch National Center
for Education Statistics, United States Department of
Education
Moffit, Andy Contributor to How the World’s Best Performing School
Systems Come Out on Top and co-author, Deliverology
101, A Field Guide for Educational Leaders
Mourshed, Mona Author, How the World’s Most Improved School Systems
Keep Getting Better
Petrilli, Michael Executive Vice President, Fordham Institute
Ripley, Amanda Author, The Smartest Kids in the World
Smarick, Andrew Author, The Urban School System of the Future
Wong, Kenneth Director of Urban Education Policy, Brown University
Interview Questions
1. If you could change three things in a school or school system such as Rhode
Island’s to create the best student outcomes, what would they be and why?
2. Assuming teacher and instructional quality is the biggest driver of student
achievement, what three things would you do to ensure the highest teacher
and instructional quality and why?
3. What do you think of our hypothesis?
a. What types of autonomy (staffing, budget, curriculum, schedule, etc.)
drive the highest return for students?
4. How would you ensure the smoothest transition for changes in governance?
a. What is the best path to change?
5. If you don’t believe a change in governance/autonomy is important for
improving student achievement – what do you think would be and why?
6. What recommendations do you have for our Working Group?
a. Other experts to interview, questions to ask, recommendations for
change?
b. From your experience, what mistakes should we avoid?

21
Understanding Educational Autonomy and its Potential Application in Rhode
Island
A Summary of External Interviews
Background
The state of Rhode Island has undertaken many reforms including adopting the
Common Core State Standards, implementing an educator evaluation system and
increasing standards for those wishing to enter the teaching profession. As these
more centralized reforms are taking hold, the Governor and the Rhode Island
Department of Education (RIDE) believed that to continue to improve student
success, it would be necessary to identify ways in which additional decision-making
might be vested as closely as possible and practical to the student. As part of its
information gathering on educational autonomy, a series of interviews were
undertaken with approximately twenty education practitioners (see Interviewee
List in Appendix A) and academics on this topic to identify – for a place like Rhode
Island – what types of autonomy8 are best vested closest to the student and how
should they be implemented?
Autonomy is an intensely debated topic in today’s education circles both nationally
and internationally. There are those who strongly believe that a district or state
office can best manage many decisions by centralizing research and best practices
and disseminating them through consistent standards, professional development
and policies across districts and schools. Others firmly believe that the teachers,
who are closest to students, should be able to make professional decisions regarding
what is best for each student. However, the vast majority of education systems
operate in between the two extremes without a clear answer as to what the optimal
allocation of decision-making should be. In fact, we found that all over the world,
countries, states and districts are experimenting with ways in which decision-
making can be made closer to the student while improving the quality and
consistency of academic outcomes.
Alignment in Key Areas
There was alignment amongst the interviewees in several key areas. There was
clear consensus that the key driver to improved student success was instructional
quality and that therefore, increasing the professionalization of teaching was of
utmost importance. Ensuring high quality instruction required several interrelated
systems including a pipeline of high quality, well-trained candidates, a high quality
induction and mentoring program, structured collaboration and a comprehensive
evaluation and professional development system. Interviewees firmly believed that
improving opportunities for professional growth for educators at every step was
critical.
8
For purposes of this paper, autonomy is defined as the freedom to make decisions in an
educational setting.

22
Because of this alignment around high quality instruction driving student success,
there was also general agreement that autonomy over the broad area of staffing
(staffing pattern, selection, role, professional development, etc.) is the most
important area in which there should be local autonomy. Local decision-making
over staff-related decisions would allow for school leaders to build cohesive teams
that together held the comprehensive set of skills needed to meet their students’
needs. Several interviewees believed that an increased level of local decision-
making would also attract more qualified candidates into teaching and
administrative positions. As well, a school-based definition of educator roles would
allow for collaboration and assistance to colleagues in improving educator practice
as necessary based on the specific needs of each school.
There was also a common belief that increased local autonomy had the potential to
yield improved outcomes for students, but only in the context of additional
measures. Increasing local autonomy did not immediately translate to improved
student success; it must be created through a thoughtful process that involved
building trust, appropriate training and accountability measures and a secure long-
term outlook. As decision-making shifts, appropriate training must occur to
properly prepare those now making decisions. As well, many interviewees believed
that decision-making was often taken on more by experienced school leaders and
educators who know how to “work the system” and less by newer ones because they
were unclear where the lines of authority lie. Therefore, in all cases, there should be
clarity around where decision-making is vested in each area. Further, the majority
of interviewees believed that schools should have clear metrics, standards, time-
based goals and processes for addressing poor performance. Interviewees in
general also believed that any increased decision-making should be granted through
a system that could be insulated from specific personalities or political changes. In
order to make hard decisions with the long-term success of students in mind, the
holders of this new decision-making authority need to be confident that their
authority will be upheld as long as their performance meets agreed upon goals.
Finally, there was also a shared belief among interviewees that the basis of
successful local decision-making was an atmosphere of trust among participants in
the education system at all levels.
Implementing Autonomy Practices: Three basic approaches
While there was alignment on many of the aspects of autonomy discussed above,
there was a variety of ways in which interviewees believed it was best to implement
that autonomy. Our research identified three basic theories on when increased
autonomy is most effective, leading to three different approaches to allocating
autonomy between local and centralized operations:(1) opt-in autonomy, (2)
earned autonomy and (3) tight/loose autonomy.
Opt-in autonomy is based on the theory that higher-levels of decision-making are
most effective and appropriate for those who desire them. This is based on the
premise that schools or districts are at different levels of readiness for increased
decision-making and that they recognize when they are ready. Opt-in autonomy is

23
the option for a school or a district to apply to the district or state education agency
for increased autonomy in specific areas or as a whole. An example of opt-in
autonomy is Massachusetts’s Innovation Schools in which existing schools or a
group of educators, parents or non-profits can apply to the to their local district to
become an Innovation School. Innovation Schools are community-based and
propose increased autonomy over one or more of six clearly defined areas of school
governance. While the Innovation School program was developed at the state level,
Innovation Schools require the approval of the local school committee. In this way,
the district can ensure that school leadership is prepared for their additional
autonomy and that clear metrics, goals and timelines are spelled out in the
Innovation agreement. Through this process, Massachusetts has created a roadmap
for those educators who desire increased autonomy while ensuring accountability.
The idea behind earned autonomy is that when a school or a district is performing
well, they are prepared to undertake additional decision-making responsibility.
This approach grants increased decision-making to high-performing schools while
requiring less oversight by the next level of authority (district or state). The theory
is that a school or district that is successful under the current construct has the
experience and expertise to operate with fewer oversights. This approach to
autonomy is supported by the findings in McKinsey & Co.’s report How the Best
Performing School Systems Keep Improving. In this report, McKinsey classifies 20
continually improving systems into several categories (poor, fair, good and great)
and analyzes the interventions undertaken to improve from one category to the
next. In their analysis, they find that in systems on the lower end of the continuum,
more areas of autonomy are centralized and as they improve, more autonomy is
moved closer to the student.
An example of earned autonomy is the Los Angeles Autonomy Zone. The Los
Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) believes that decision-making is best
when closest to the student in successful schools, but that struggling schools need
an increased level of district oversight. Therefore, schools that perform in the upper
two performance categories can automatically become part of the autonomy zone if
they so wish. Schools in the third performance category must apply to become part
of the Autonomy Zone and those in the lowest performance category may not apply.
This is actually a hybrid model including both opt-in and earned autonomy. The risk
of this approach is that the existing system may not allow the flexibilities to be
successful in some cases. In those cases, a school may not become high performing
enough to earn the autonomy needed to become successful.
An interesting counter point to the autonomy earned for good performance is
increased autonomy granted to improve lower performing schools. The underlying
theory is that poorly performing schools need more autonomy to operate differently
in order to improve a poorly performing school. An example of this type of earned
autonomy is the receivership of Lawrence, Massachusetts. Lawrence had been a
poorly performing district for many years and was placed into receivership in 2011.
The district improvement plan included increased local autonomy for all schools,

24
along with clear goals and timelines for outcomes. While it is still early in this
process, results to date are dramatic. In fact, the highest growth in academic success
in Massachusetts in 2013 was in Lawrence.
The third approach to the allocation of decision-making in education is what
educators referred to as “tight/loose”. This approach is based on the theory that
intrinsically some decisions are best made at a centralized level and some are best
made at a local level for all schools or districts regardless of interest or performance.
Houston Independent School District (HISD) is an example of this approach. Where
the district feels that a standard needed to be upheld, they impose a tight level of
autonomy and where they believe that local knowledge would improve decision-
making, they allow for looser autonomy. For example, HISD holds tight to standards
for the number of Advanced Placement courses. In HISD, each and every high school
is required to offer a minimum of 15 AP courses. However, HISD allows each school
to set their own start and end time based on the needs of their students – this is a
loose area of autonomy. In hiring, HISD allows their schools to hire anyone they like
(loose) as long as the candidate comes from a centralized approved pool (tight).
HISD upholds basic standards of instructor quality and allows the schools to
determine which candidates best fit their school’s needs and culture. There is also
clear recognition that which areas require tight and which require loose may evolve
over time. The risk of this approach is that the decision-making authority over
which areas are tight and which are loose is in the hands of those furthest from the
student.
Autonomy and Student Results
In terms of results, while there are numerous anecdotal success stories, there are no
conclusive results correlating student success with specific methods of allocating
decision-making authority. The Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA) is the sole international comparison of student outcomes. PISA surveys
principals on autonomy levels in two areas: Resource Management (hiring and
firing of teachers, budgeting of other expenses) and Curriculum and Assessment and
then determines whether there is a correlation between levels of autonomy and
student achievement.
Results show three positive correlations in order of strength:
o Resource autonomy in the presence of collaboration between teachers
and principals
o Local control over curriculum and assessment
o Resource autonomy in the presence of public posting of academic
outcomes
However, these findings are given in the context of several caveats. The data is from
a survey of principals. The degree of variability within countries is suspicious and
may reflect differences in how much autonomy principals perceive they have rather
than how much autonomy they have by virtue of policy. Additionally, it is difficult
to tailor the questions well because each system is different. What we think of as a

25
local school board may go by a different name in another country. As well, the titles
of levels of authority can be interpreted very differently in different languages and
in different countries.
Implications for Rhode Island
Interviewees had many ideas for recommendations for Rhode Island. Most
commended the steps already taken to improve education in Rhode Island and
believe that Rhode Island is ready to move toward increased autonomy at the local
level. Many interviewees believed that Rhode Island should continue to push on
current changes being implemented – specifically those that improve the
professionalization of the teaching profession including standards for incoming
teacher candidates, induction and mentoring programs and professional
development.
Several mentioned that Rhode Island should ensure there is clarity at the educator,
school leader, district leader, school committee and state leader levels regarding
where current decision-making lies in each area of autonomy. Several interviewees
also thought Rhode Island should consider collaboratively developing a roadmap to
increased local autonomy with state, district and union representatives (e.g., a
playbook). There was clear consensus that with any changes in autonomy,
appropriate training and accountability must be in place and that changes are
developed and implemented in a collaborative and trust-building manner.
An additional recommendation that several interviewees suggested was to consider
consolidating certain functions of the education system to create cost savings that
could then be reallocated to the classroom. This recommendation was based on a
general belief that a state structure of 32 local education agencies for 143,000
students was not efficient or effective.
Finally, interviewees challenged us to consider three additional questions. Two
questions focused on the financial impact of increased autonomy. Interviewees
encouraged us to consider how to best incent increased local autonomy, and
whether a shift to more local autonomy would increase or decrease costs over the
long-term. As well, a final central question raised by interviewees was how to view
the various roles of the central office with regard to autonomy, including the degree
to which the central office plays more of a support versus an oversight role.
Conclusion
In summary, there are many areas in which interviewees agreed, most notably the
importance of the quality of instruction to student success. This premise drives the
overriding belief that the most important local autonomies are those over staffing
decisions. There was strong agreement that increased local autonomy was not the
silver bullet for improving student success, but that several additional components
are necessary including a clearly defined system of autonomy accompanied by
appropriate training, accountability systems, a guarantee that those autonomies will

26
continue as long as accountability measures are met and an atmosphere of trust
among all those involved.
While there is alignment around these aspects of autonomy, there were a variety of
approaches regarding how interviewees and those around the world are
operationally increasing autonomy at a local level including three identified
approaches; opt-in autonomy, earned autonomy and tight/loose autonomy. While
there are many examples of student success under different structures of decision-
making, there is no conclusive evidence that points to a specific structure or system
of autonomy that would definitively improve student outcomes.
Interviewees suggested several recommendations for Rhode Island. In general, they
believed that increasing autonomy under appropriate conditions would improve
student success. Recommendations focused on clarifying and supporting existing
autonomy and ways in which to increase local autonomy through a collaborative
process.

27
Appendix C
Brief Background of Rhode Island Public Education
Summary
Rhode Island (RI) is a small, fairly low-mobility state with a struggling economy and
moderately diverse population. RI is also a solidly Democratic state with
traditionally strong unions. The Commissioner of Education is the leader for K-12
schools, as well as for early-learning programs and for adult education, and she
reports to an 11-member Board of Education appointed by the Governor for three
year terms.
While student achievement has been improving, RI ranks 20th to 29th in student
achievement, with significant achievement gaps between whites and minorities and
between economically disadvantaged students and other students, particularly
students with disabilities. This performance is despite the fact that RI is consistently
one of the top ten states in spending on education.
Education Commissioner Deborah A. Gist came to RI in 2009 and developed a multi-
faceted strategic plan. In 2010 and 2011, Rhode Island won two competitive Race to
the Top federal grants to help put the plan into action. While Rhode Island has
achieved many significant changes, such as an equitable funding formula, a new
teacher induction program, an Academy for Transformative Leadership, and
transition to Common Core standards, among others, advocates for reform have also
faced resistance on several fronts – in particular, the abolishment of seniority as the
sole basis for personnel decisions, the use of student achievement as a key element
in educator evaluations, and the use of state assessments as part of the Rhode Island
Diploma System.
Many of the current initiatives have emanated from the state level; in order to reach
the next level of student achievement RI is now searching for strategies that will
result in more autonomy and decision-making at the school and classroom level.
Demographics
Rhode Island (RI) is geographically the smallest state in the United States, with a
land area of 1,034 square miles (2,678 square kilometers)[i].
With 1,052,000 residents, Rhode Island ranks 43rd among the 50 states in terms of
population [ii]. Three of Rhode Island’s 39 cities/towns account for approximately
one-third of the state’s population; the largest city is Providence, with a population
of 178,000[iii].
RI is a moderately diverse state with residents who are 76 percent white, 13 percent
Hispanic, 7 percent African American, and 3 percent Asian. Thirteen percent of
Rhode Islanders are foreign-born. [iv]
Economy

28
RI was hit particularly hard by the 2008 recession and continues to have the 3rd-
highest unemployment rate in the United States, at 8.9 percent as of July 2013,
compared with 7.4 percent for the nation as a whole. [v] Forty-six percent of Rhode
Island public-school students qualify for the reduced-price school-lunch program.
In the past, RI had a vibrant textile and jewelry design and manufacturing economy;
however, as jobs in these industries have moved overseas, RI has struggled
economically. Currently, RI’s largest employers are in the health-care, government,
private-education, finance and insurance, and retail-trade industries.
The RI median household income, $49,033, is virtually the same as that of the US,
which stands at $50,054; however, the median Rhode Island income is decreasing
while the US median income is increasing (RI is down from $53,736 in 2006 and the
US is up from $48,201). [vi]
Political Landscape
RI is a solidly Democratic state. President Obama garnered 63% of the popular vote
in November 2012. [vii] Both United States Senators and United States
Representatives are Democrats, and both the RI Senate and Assembly have
consistently had overwhelmingly Democratic majorities.
Education Governance
RI’s education state-level operations are governed by an 11-member Board of
Education that the Governor appoints. This Board is responsible for all public
education from prekindergarten through elementary and secondary and including
higher education and adult education.
The Board of Education hires and evaluates the Commissioner and approves any
changes to the Basic Education Program (BEP) – Rhode Island’s outline of
requirements for all schools and districts. This regulation was greatly streamlined
in 2008, moving from a very detailed document to a 40-page one that provides a
great deal of flexibility to districts.
The RI Department of Education, led by the Commissioner of Education, is
responsible for implementing the BEP and for monitoring district and school
compliance.
K – 12 Education System
The Rhode Island public-school system educates approximately 143,000 students in
300 schools that are located within 36 local districts. Approximately 4,700 of these
students attend one of the states 19 charter public schools. There are
approximately 14,275 teachers in the state. [viii]
The student population is more diverse than the general population. The public-
school student population is 63 percent white, 22 percent Hispanic, 8 percent
African American, 3 percent each Asian and multi-racial, and 1 percent Native

29
American. Approximately 15 percent of students are provided special education
services.
Rhode Island spends $15,548 per pupil (Fiscal Year 2012) on elementary and
secondary education and consistently ranks among the ten states with the highest
expenditures per pupil in the country.[ix]
Performance
Results of the New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) and the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) highlight the relative
achievement of Rhode Island students.
The NECAP is administered annually to all students in grades 3 through 8 plus grade
11. The 2011 percentage of students at or above proficient has increased since
2009 (ranging from one to seven percentage points) or remained the same in all
categories of both reading and mathematics with the exception of 3rd grade reading
and mathematics, which decreased by 2 percentage points each.[x]
The NECAP is also administered in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine. While of
the percentage of Rhode Island students who have scored proficient or better has
increased since 2009, RI generally ranks 3rd or 4th among the NECAP states, with a
proficiency gap between RI and the highest-performing NECAP state remaining
virtually the same since 2009 (seven percentage points in reading and 12
percentage points in mathematics).[xi]
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is administered in all
states every other year to 4th- and 8th-grade students in reading and mathematics.
The NAEP science and writing assessments are administered at varying intervals.
The percentage of RI students at or above proficient in 2011 NAEP assessments
ranged from a high of 43 percent in 4th-grade mathematics to a low of 31 percent in
8th-grade science. These scores are an improvement from 2009 (in a range of four
to six percentage points) in all tested subjects and grades, with the exception of 4th-
grade reading, which decreased by one percentage point. The 2011 RI NAEP scores
rank RI generally in the mid-range of states, with rankings ranging from 20th to
29th.[xii]
RI has significant achievement gaps, although these gaps are consistent with the
national averages. 2011 NECAP results show a gap in the percentage of students
scoring at or above proficient between white students and black students of 20 to
33 percentage points and gaps for Hispanic students of 27 and 32 percentage
points. The gap is also large between those who are and those who are not eligible
for free or reduced-price lunch (between 26 and 31 percentage points) as well as for
urban versus suburban students. [xiii]
Attendance in Rhode Island overall is approximately 94 percent, although high-
school attendance is 91 percent.

30
The four-year high school graduation rate is 77 percent, making RI the 29th-highest
state. [xiv]
However, approximately 75 percent of those with a high-school diploma who enter
the Community College of Rhode Island have required remediation in order to be
ready for college-level courses.
Postsecondary Education System
RI has a diverse set of postsecondary education institutions, including three public
and nine private colleges/universities. The vast majority of RI public-school
teachers are graduates of Rhode Island College or the University of Rhode Island.
Rhode Island public institutions of higher education include:
· Community College of Rhode Island, serving 18,000 students, with courses
toward an associate degree.
· Rhode Island College, serving approximately 9,000 students in
undergraduate and graduate programs.
· The University of Rhode Island serves approximately 16,000 students in
graduate and undergraduate programs and is the state’s primary research
institution.
Private institutions include Brown University (8,700 students); the Rhode Island
School of Design (2,400 students) one of the most prestigious art schools in the
country; Johnson &Wales University (11,000 students), specializing in Hospitality
Management; and the Naval War College along with Bryant University, Providence
College, Salve Regina University, and New England Institute of Technology.
Recent Happenings
New Board of Education
In December 2012, the Board of Governors (responsible for higher education) and
the Board of Regents for Elementary and Secondary Education (responsible for
early learning, K-12 education, and adult education) were dissolved and a new
Board of Education was created, with responsibility for all education. Because the
State Senate had not yet confirmed any of the new Board of Education members, no
governing body existed from January 2013 to March 2013, when the new members
were confirmed.
New Commissioner’s Contract
Prior to the current Commissioner, RI’s Commissioner for Education (K-12) was
Peter McWalters for nearly 18 years. Commissioner Gist has initiated many new
reforms since her tenure began in 2009. RI is now in the third year of implementing
the state’s 5-year strategic plan, Transforming Education in Rhode Island. This plan
focuses on:
· Educator excellence (initiated new educator induction program, principal
training program, and comprehensive educator evaluation systems),
· Great schools (transforming failing schools, supporting multiple pathways

31
and charter public schools),
· World-class standards (adopting Common Core standards and aligned
curriculum and assessments),
· User-friendly data (creating an accessible, timely data system, with
necessary training, to improve instruction) and
· Wise investments (ensuring equitable funding including adoption of a new
funding formula that allows funding to follow the child with adjustments
for special needs and poverty rates)
RI was one of only 12 states to win a competitive federal grant ($75 million), Race to
the Top, and one of only 6 to also receive the Race to the Top Early Learning
Challenge ($50 million), both of which are being used for implementation of the
strategic plan.
While many of these changes have been well received, several have been difficult. A
multi-stakeholder group developed one of the most commonly used educator
evaluation system; however, there has been significant resistance to full
implementation of evaluations. Additionally, using state assessments as part of the
Diploma System has also resulted in significant resistance.
The result is a sometimes-challenging relationship between Commissioner Gist and
the teachers’ unions. The Board of Education recently renewed Commissioner Gist’s
contract, extending her tenure through July 2015.
*******************************************************************************************
[i] “State and County Quickfacts.” Census. United States Census Bureau. n.d. Web. 19
Aug. 2013.
[ii] “State Rankings – Statistical Abstract of the United States.” United States Census
Bureau. United States Census Bureau. n. d. Web. 19 Aug. 2013.
[iii] “Rhode Island City & Town Resident Population from Census 2010.” Labor
Market Information. RI Department of Labor and Training. 14 Feb. 2013. Web. 19
Aug. 2013.
[iv] “State and County Quickfacts.” Census. United States Census Bureau. n.d. Web. 19
Aug. 2013.
[v] “Local Area Unemployment Statistics.” Bureau of Labor Statistics. United States
Department of Labor. 19 Aug. 2013. Web. 19 Aug. 2013.
[vi] “Median Household Income by State – Single-Year Estimates.” United States
Census Bureau. United States Department of Commerce. n.d. Web. 19 Aug. 2013.
[vii] “2012 General Election.” Rhode Island Board of Elections. State of Rhode Island.
n.d. Web. 19 Aug. 2013
[viii] infoworks.ride.ri.gov/state/ri, accessed 08152013
[ix] Results: Education in Rhode Island 2011, RIPEC.org; Uniform Chart of Accounts,
R.I. Department of Education, 2011-12 Data, Total Per Pupil Expenditure Chart,

32
ride.ri.gov
[x] Rhode Island Department of Education. Rhode Island’s NECAP Math, Reading, and
Writing Results for Grades 3‐8 & 11: October 2012 Test Administration. RIDE,
V.03.12.13. Web. 18 Aug. 13
[xi] Ibid.
[xii] National Center for Education Statistics. U.S. Department of Education. n.d. Web.
20 Aug. 2013
[xiii] Ibid.
[xiv] “Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate, All Students: 2010-11”. ED Data
Express. U.S. Department of Education. n.d. 20 Aug. 2013.

33
Appendix D
Exploring Autonomy in Education
This is a power point – and will be integrated into the final document

34
Appendix E
Glossary
Autonomy – The freedom to make professional decisions in an educational setting.
District – An administrative agency that is recognized by the State as having the legal
authority for its public elementary or secondary schools, including typical Local
Education Agency, charter schools, and state schools.
Education System – The aligned and interconnected structures and processes that
exist from the state to the district, from the district to the school, and from the school
to classroom that ensures that all Rhode Island students are adequately prepared for
life beyond secondary education.
Education Leader – An educator who has a decision-making role within the
education system, or one who influences the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of a
significant number of individuals they interact with to improve student learning and
success.
Stakeholders – A person or group invested in the success of the education system. For
our purposes this would include students, parents, teachers, principals,
superintendents and other education leaders, the higher education system, employers,
local and state policy-makers, and community members.
Systems and Supports – A group of interacting and interrelated functions that is
necessary for K-12 public education to operate in Rhode Island. These include: human
resources, professional development, educator preparation, finance, budgeting, and
purchasing, curriculum and assessment selection.

35
Appendix F
Conditions Required for Effective Autonomy
The EAWG believes that in order for autonomous practices and decision-making to
take hold, the following conditions are necessary:
 Trust is needed among and across all level of the educational system.
 A collaborative culture focused on fostering student success is necessary.
 Clarity regarding where authority to make decisions resides is key.
 Value must be placed on educational professionals at all levels of the
education system.
 Systems and supports that are responsive to autonomous practices need to
exist.

RI Educator Autonomy Draft Report v.6

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to RI Educator Autonomy Draft Report v.6 (20)

More from ppageegd (15)

Recently uploaded (20)

RI Educator Autonomy Draft Report v.6