![Educator Autonomy Working Group
April 7, Meeting
Meeting Notes
Monday, April 7, 2014
4:30 – 6:30 p.m.
Rhode Island Department of Education
80 Washington Street/255 Westminster Street, Providence
Room 501
Guiding Principles for Our Work:
Student learning and success is paramount.
Educators (teachers, school and district administrators) want what is best for
students.
Decisions should be made as close to the student as is practical and effective.
Objectives for this Meeting:
Continue to build relationships among all members and increase understanding on
autonomy
Engage in a discussion with Massachusetts’ leaders who have been implementing a
variety of autonomy strategies/models
4:30 – 4:45 Welcome and Reflections
Yanaiza Gallant and Pat Page–Co-chairs of the Educator Autonomy Working Group
Reflections from our March 4, 2014 meeting – Perspectives gained from examples
from other states
4:45 – 6:15 Massachusetts Experience: Lessons Learned on Implementing Autonomy
Strategies/Approaches in the State/Districts: Interactive Panel Discussion
State Level Approach and Experience: Bridget Rodriquez, Massachusetts Executive
Office of Education
- Autonomies come from the district it is a local initiative. Autonomies are not the end of the story.
It is using the autonomies as levers to do what will best meet the needs of the student
- Website has a comparison chart that shows the difference between schools – biggest difference
is where authorization comes from.
District Level Approach in Boston: Linda Nathan, Lessons Learned and Future
Direction
- District decisions were based on state and political climate.
- 1/3 of Boston schools are autonomous schools.
- If you unlock things like the budget, you can realize what schools are capable of.
School Level Approach: Ayla Gavins, Lessons Learned from Mission Hill
- Training for teachers and leaders prior to getting into autonomy. Participated in the principal
residency program in RI.
- School receives a lump sum of money, and principal meets with group of ‘permanent staff’ who
budget based on what the students need. [1st layer is funding staff salaries, 2nd layer is services
the students need, 3rd layer is individual teacher funding for supplies].
Q: Collaborative Professional Development at the school level – what happens in that process?
A: At the end of the year, they examine gaps, and start planning PD for upcoming year in June of the
prior year. Teachers who have a particular expertise sign-up to lead PD sessions.
Q: What do the hours look like in your day? With and without students?](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/educatorautonomyworkgroup4-140416122413-phpapp02/85/Educator-autonomy-work-group-4-7-14-notes-1-320.jpg)
![Subject to what was going on in the districts - In one very troubled district going through leadership
change, struggling school committee, fear in the unions and misinformation – making sure accurate
information was a challenge in some places – but not the majority.
School – trying to work with centralized employees, who don’t know what to do in their school.
District – negotiations process with unions, and and how much time it took (principal). Biggest
constraints in districts – 30 member team will not get to a consensus of what is best for Boston Public
Schools.
Q: Taking autonomy away and accountability – if autonomous school is really struggling, whose
responsibility is it to solve the problem?
A: New accountability framework on school committee website – trying to use language parallel to state
language. Someone has to say, here are the autonomies, and here is what excellence looks like.
Training is involved with everything. The Residency Model is absolutely key, and the colleges need to
step up and help with that. Take a close look at principal evaluation – principal of the school has to sit
in front of the governing boards for the principal evaluations. There has to be an articulated agreement
– needs to be thought through, and emphasize the district re-design, you need someone at that level
who gets this work.
Q: Principal evaluation/administrator evaluations – do faculty have input on these?
A: Yes, A LOT. Happens in a combination of ways [Interviews; surveys of parents, staff, community
members; standard benchmarks every year; and goals put forth from previous year].
Q: Are there schools that have autonomy, and not much change?
A: Yes – all the time. The idea is having the freedom to change.
Q: There is an alleged correlation between autonomy and innovation? Not accurate.
A: This is a local initiative. What looks innovative in one community will look very different in another. The
state has not taken a position on what is ‘innovative’ enough. Rather, they ask ‘are you using
autonomies to better serve your kids’ vs. having a ‘gold standard’ of innovative.
Q: First steps -> what would you do differently, from your lessons learned? Speak to
establishing/restoring the trust.
A: State: Innovation school legislation – was done with a collaboration of statewide teachers unions.
Every step along the way involved an extensive stakeholder group – including the unions. Resources
are paramount: planning grants have been $10k, the implementation grants have reached $30k in the
first year. Must provide some incentive for first year start-ups (teacher releases, writing, allow planning
to go on ‘cost-neutral’). Most important pieces are collaboration and resources.
School: Trust. Set clear values, and make sure the schools have practices that matched what the
stated values are. If the student is a value, what are the systems and structures in place that line up
with that to allow the teachers to move their students forward? Look for good managers of people who
know child development – a lining up of skill sets. Have clear and open communication and decision
making; the person/people making the decision must be clear about what the decision is and why (ex:
‘sorry this is a federal mandate, and I had 24 hours to make this decision’). Don’t forget that you owe
people an explanation for the decisions you make. Have a competency based set of tasks that you
want students to be able to do, and make it something students can be proud of.
District: Biggest mistake started as experiment – initial design was research and development to help
the district change practice, which didn’t happen, and a culture of ‘us’ and ‘them’ emerged, and still
exists today. The current Superintendent is making huge steps to align the staffing policies for all
schools. Don’t do this piecemeal – has not been healthy to have some schools with autonomies and
some without, and it speaks to the trust issue. Embrace and shift to a culture of ‘we’ as school-based
and central office based. There must be time, and there must be enough time. You must think about
the PD that teachers will need. Universities, states, districts, need to examine what leadership looks
like.
6:15 – 6:30 Reflections and Feedback – Complete an Exit Ticket](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/educatorautonomyworkgroup4-140416122413-phpapp02/85/Educator-autonomy-work-group-4-7-14-notes-3-320.jpg)
Educator autonomy work group 4.7.14 notes
- 1. Educator Autonomy Working Group April 7, Meeting Meeting Notes Monday, April 7, 2014 4:30 – 6:30 p.m. Rhode Island Department of Education 80 Washington Street/255 Westminster Street, Providence Room 501 Guiding Principles for Our Work: Student learning and success is paramount. Educators (teachers, school and district administrators) want what is best for students. Decisions should be made as close to the student as is practical and effective. Objectives for this Meeting: Continue to build relationships among all members and increase understanding on autonomy Engage in a discussion with Massachusetts’ leaders who have been implementing a variety of autonomy strategies/models 4:30 – 4:45 Welcome and Reflections Yanaiza Gallant and Pat Page–Co-chairs of the Educator Autonomy Working Group Reflections from our March 4, 2014 meeting – Perspectives gained from examples from other states 4:45 – 6:15 Massachusetts Experience: Lessons Learned on Implementing Autonomy Strategies/Approaches in the State/Districts: Interactive Panel Discussion State Level Approach and Experience: Bridget Rodriquez, Massachusetts Executive Office of Education - Autonomies come from the district it is a local initiative. Autonomies are not the end of the story. It is using the autonomies as levers to do what will best meet the needs of the student - Website has a comparison chart that shows the difference between schools – biggest difference is where authorization comes from. District Level Approach in Boston: Linda Nathan, Lessons Learned and Future Direction - District decisions were based on state and political climate. - 1/3 of Boston schools are autonomous schools. - If you unlock things like the budget, you can realize what schools are capable of. School Level Approach: Ayla Gavins, Lessons Learned from Mission Hill - Training for teachers and leaders prior to getting into autonomy. Participated in the principal residency program in RI. - School receives a lump sum of money, and principal meets with group of ‘permanent staff’ who budget based on what the students need. [1st layer is funding staff salaries, 2nd layer is services the students need, 3rd layer is individual teacher funding for supplies]. Q: Collaborative Professional Development at the school level – what happens in that process? A: At the end of the year, they examine gaps, and start planning PD for upcoming year in June of the prior year. Teachers who have a particular expertise sign-up to lead PD sessions. Q: What do the hours look like in your day? With and without students?
- 2. A: Start around 7:30am, students arrive around 9:15am, and leave around 3pm. After students leave, there are meetings, and teachers usually leave by 5:30pm. Q: What do you see as the performance results from the various flavors of autonomy? A: We are seeing varying results, and currently doing a case study on 6 schools. Commonality is that principals had leadership training. Not the ‘end all to be all’, some autonomous schools are in turnaround status. Q: Does funding for students vary by school, and is not based on students or schools? A: Funding comes from the district, and is by the student. Q: In a state like RI, how does school distribution in districts play into this, and also the lead time (6 month time frame)? A: Varying sizes of districts – it’s completely voluntary process to become an autonomous school. Level 3 school would be equivalent to a ‘warning’ school. Q: Permanent teachers – what are the employment characteristics of this group? A: All pilot schools have the option of following the Boston Teacher’s Union contract, or a school based contract. The school-based contract lists all the expectations of the teacher (e.g. must be present for hours above and beyond the children, will write a weekly newsletter, be available for colleagues), in addition to operational and professional expectations. Performance according to the contract will determine if teacher is asked to a ‘permanent’ staff member. Exceptional teachers will not always be asked/voted on as permanent staff. Everyone is on a one-year contract. So termination is not ‘off the table’ but permanent staff have the expectation of returning the next year. Q: As you are interviewing people to be hired – are there characteristics you look for? Do you ever hire 1st year teachers, and how do you bring them into the fold of autonomy? A: We look for past experiences as well as education (e.g. attending a conference or being part of a network that they know would prepare the person for the setting); people who don’t think in a box – don’t use buzzwords, but talk about children, and don’t put children in boxes; being flexible in thinking. Yes, they hire 1st year teachers – but in the beginning, they stood firm on no less than 3 years’ experience, b/c of the leadership expectation component. 1st year teachers receive a ramped up version of what they do (ex: 2 staff meetings per week vs. 1, a 9 day prior return to school vs. 7 days). In terms of folding in autonomy, people do not have the experience of autonomy coming in like they used to. If they feel like they don’t have the capacity to prepare the person, they will not hire them. Q: Who sets the annual review process? What does that look like? A: There is a statewide accountability system, with goals specific to the school and aligned with the mission (ex: some around attendance and standardized testing). The state makes sure the school is doing what they said they would do during their planning process. Accountability is often measured by school climate surveys, or how many kids are enrolled in afterschool activities - if that was part of their plan. The only reason the state looks at this is to make sure they are on track; most are on a 5 year plan. Q: What are the best Curriculum & Instruction autonomies you have seen? A: The single most important autonomy is that of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Ideally there is a residency model – aspiring leaders are paired with current leaders. Need to know how to make a decision inclusive of varying perspectives, how to deliver bad news to school committee, etc. It is very hard to do this work (well and right) if you have not had the proper training. You MUST invest in leadership development, and district re-design goes hand-in-hand with this. Trust has be driving everything so things that are put in place are being done by people you trust to do the work – instead of an overseeing body waiting for you to make a mistake and ‘gotcha’. Q: Is it better to revoke ‘autonomy’ or work with the school? A: Often, they will reconvene with the planning committee to work on improvements. Revocation is part of the statute. Autonomy should not be taken away, no matter what is going on – it doesn’t fix the problem, it is more of a distraction. You still haven’t solved/found the real problem. Q: What is the biggest barrier you faced? A: State – new initiative caused a lot of worry about what it meant, and misinformation being spread.
- 3. Subject to what was going on in the districts - In one very troubled district going through leadership change, struggling school committee, fear in the unions and misinformation – making sure accurate information was a challenge in some places – but not the majority. School – trying to work with centralized employees, who don’t know what to do in their school. District – negotiations process with unions, and and how much time it took (principal). Biggest constraints in districts – 30 member team will not get to a consensus of what is best for Boston Public Schools. Q: Taking autonomy away and accountability – if autonomous school is really struggling, whose responsibility is it to solve the problem? A: New accountability framework on school committee website – trying to use language parallel to state language. Someone has to say, here are the autonomies, and here is what excellence looks like. Training is involved with everything. The Residency Model is absolutely key, and the colleges need to step up and help with that. Take a close look at principal evaluation – principal of the school has to sit in front of the governing boards for the principal evaluations. There has to be an articulated agreement – needs to be thought through, and emphasize the district re-design, you need someone at that level who gets this work. Q: Principal evaluation/administrator evaluations – do faculty have input on these? A: Yes, A LOT. Happens in a combination of ways [Interviews; surveys of parents, staff, community members; standard benchmarks every year; and goals put forth from previous year]. Q: Are there schools that have autonomy, and not much change? A: Yes – all the time. The idea is having the freedom to change. Q: There is an alleged correlation between autonomy and innovation? Not accurate. A: This is a local initiative. What looks innovative in one community will look very different in another. The state has not taken a position on what is ‘innovative’ enough. Rather, they ask ‘are you using autonomies to better serve your kids’ vs. having a ‘gold standard’ of innovative. Q: First steps -> what would you do differently, from your lessons learned? Speak to establishing/restoring the trust. A: State: Innovation school legislation – was done with a collaboration of statewide teachers unions. Every step along the way involved an extensive stakeholder group – including the unions. Resources are paramount: planning grants have been $10k, the implementation grants have reached $30k in the first year. Must provide some incentive for first year start-ups (teacher releases, writing, allow planning to go on ‘cost-neutral’). Most important pieces are collaboration and resources. School: Trust. Set clear values, and make sure the schools have practices that matched what the stated values are. If the student is a value, what are the systems and structures in place that line up with that to allow the teachers to move their students forward? Look for good managers of people who know child development – a lining up of skill sets. Have clear and open communication and decision making; the person/people making the decision must be clear about what the decision is and why (ex: ‘sorry this is a federal mandate, and I had 24 hours to make this decision’). Don’t forget that you owe people an explanation for the decisions you make. Have a competency based set of tasks that you want students to be able to do, and make it something students can be proud of. District: Biggest mistake started as experiment – initial design was research and development to help the district change practice, which didn’t happen, and a culture of ‘us’ and ‘them’ emerged, and still exists today. The current Superintendent is making huge steps to align the staffing policies for all schools. Don’t do this piecemeal – has not been healthy to have some schools with autonomies and some without, and it speaks to the trust issue. Embrace and shift to a culture of ‘we’ as school-based and central office based. There must be time, and there must be enough time. You must think about the PD that teachers will need. Universities, states, districts, need to examine what leadership looks like. 6:15 – 6:30 Reflections and Feedback – Complete an Exit Ticket