Cluster Planning Update and Charter Application Approval

June 1, 2015

1

STATUS REGARDING CLUSTER PLANNING

2

Cluster Planning: Timeline (January – May 2015)

Develop Draft Mission, Vision, & Priorities Community Meetings (Feedback on draft mission, vision, priorities, and high-level academic programs)

Identify High-level Resource Requirements (Budget and Staffing); Partnership Opportunities for SY 2015-

2016; Staffing AllocationsCommunity Meetings

Develop Draft Cluster Level Academic Program

January 30th, 2015

February/March 2015

May 2015

February/March 2015

* February 2nd, 2015: Board Meeting

Detailed Resource Requirements/Partnership

Opportunities

Full Implementation Plan

December 2015

Opportunities for Flexibility:• Discretionary Funds• Staffing Allocations• Title I/Title II

3

Cluster Planning Overview

2015 May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

Community Meetings

High-level Cluster Plans Approved

Draft High-level Plans Presented• Signature Program• Mission, Vision,

Priorities• 2015-2016 Actions• FY16 Cluster Funding

High-level Plans Presented to Senior Executive Leadership Team (SELT)

Community Outreach

Proactive Community Outreach:• NPU’s• Community Groups• Neighborhood Associations

Community Surveys

Survey Communities for Feedback on High-level Plans

Detailed Cluster Plans

Approved

Detailed Plans Presented to Senior Executive Leadership Team (SELT)• FY17/18

Resource Considerations

Detailed Cluster Plan Development

Cluster Planning Team will continue to develop detailed cluster plans, to include FY17/18 resource considerations and partnership opportunities

4

FY16 FundingSchool Flexibility ($9.1 million)

• Providing flexibility and autonomy at the school level for principals to develop staffing plans and invest resources in alignment with the District’s academic standards of service

• Funds are allocated to schools based on 50.0% straight line average and 50.0% Free and Reduced Lunch Status

Cluster Flexibility ($5 million)• Providing flexibility and autonomy at the cluster level for principals to

invest resources in alignment with the District’s academic standards of service and address cluster academic programming needs and support for future signature programming.

• Funds are allocated based on enrollment

5

Draft Signature Programs

Cluster Draft Signature Program

Carver TBD

Carver Early College Early College

Douglass IB (International Baccalaureate)

Grady College and Career Prep

Jackson IB (International Baccalaureate)

Mays IB (International Baccalaureate)

North Atlanta IB (International Baccalaureate)

South Atlanta STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics)

Therrell IB (International Baccalaureate)

Washington STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics)

BEST/CSK Single Gender

6

Cluster Planning: Next StepsJune 2015• Cluster Principals will meet with an APS leadership committee (HR, C&I, Office of

the Superintendent) to review and approve the draft cluster plans and FY16 cluster funding requests, to include:

o Mission, Visiono Signature Programo 2015-2016 Plano FY16 Funding Requesto Community Engagement Strategy for developing the plan and going forward

June – August 2015• Proactive Community Outreach on cluster planning and charter system application• Community Surveys to gain feedback on high-level cluster plans

July – December 2015• Cluster Planning Teams will develop their detailed cluster plans, to include

FY17/18 resource considerations and partnership opportunities

December 2015• Detailed Plans will be presented to APS leadership committee for approval

CHARTER SYSTEM APPLICATION UPDATE

8

Develop Approach

Hold Advisory Committee Meetings

Collect Stakeholder Input/Provide Info Sessions

Develop Timeline/Approach

Review Recommendation

Incorporate Strategic Planning Info

Develop Governance Framework

Develop Application

Public HearingsSelection of a Model

Phase 1Recommended Approach

Development

Phase 2 Application Development

Review Options in Detail

Phase 3 Operations

Develop Implementation Approach

Develop Waiver and Innovation Approaches

Strategic Alignment with Detailed Strategic Plan High Level Structures

To Support New Op Model

Operational Readiness Planning

Implement Application Approach

Operational Tools And Supports

StakeholderCommunication and

Engagement

Training, Coaching and Support for

New Operating Model

Approve Letter of Intent Approve Application

Engage and InformStakeholders

June-November 2014 November-June 2015 June 2015-June 2016

We are here

APS Charter System Application Update

9

Georgia School District Flexibility Status

10

APS Charter System Application Update

11

Date Activity November 2014 • Board Voted to Submit the Letter of Intent (LOI) for

Charter System

December 2014 • Submitted LOI to Georgia Department of Education with request for FY16 waivers needed for operation

January 2015 – May 2015 • Application Development

February 2015 – April 2015 • Community Meetings

January 2015 – May 2015 • Charter System Advisory Committee Monthly Meetings

May 2015 • Conduct Public Hearings

January 2015 – June 2015 • Stakeholder Engagement (develop 15-16 plan)June 2015 • Board Approval of Charter System Application/Petition

June 2015 • Submit Charter System Application/Petition to Georgia Department of Education

After Submittal • Georgia Department of Education makes approval/denial to State Board of Education

If Approved • Execution of Contract between the district and State Board of Education

2015 Charter System Public Hearing and Cluster Meetings

Participation*

Cluster Meeting Dates Time Signed-In

North Atlanta Tuesday, May 5, 2015 6:00-8:30pm 38

Mays and Therrell Wednesday May 6, 2015 6:00-8:30pm 80

Douglass, Washington,B.E.S.T. and Coretta Scott King Y.W.L.A.

Tuesday, May 7, 2015 6:00-8:30pm 118

Grady and Jackson Tuesday, May 13, 2015 6:00-8:30pm 73

Carver and South Atlanta Tuesday, May 14, 2015 6:00-8:30pm 48

Total 357

12

CHARTER SYSTEM PUBLIC HEARING:MAJOR TOPICS COVERED

13

Application Table of Contents• The Case

• District Introduction

• Challenges and How Charter System Can Address those Challenges

• Flexibility-Driven Innovation

• School and District level Strategies to Address each of APS’s Four Challenges

• Required Performance Goals

• Local School Governance

• Transition Timeline

• Local School Governance Teams (“LSGT”) Composition

• Scope of LSGT Work and School Based Solutions

• Cluster Advisory Teams

• Governance Supports

• LSGT Training

• Questions

14

Charter System Public Hearings Feedback

Does the community understand the Charter System concepts?• Most attendees surveyed…

o understand the reason for change and APS’ challengeso understand how the LSGTs will be structured and make decisions

• Additional communication needs to take place on…o how the charter system will address APS’ challengeso how APS will be assessed during the charter term

Common Questions Asked• How will the Opportunity School District impact this process?• How will central office support this operating model?• What impact will this process have on teachers?• How will the clusters work with the new system?• How will PTA’s and Foundations coordinate with LSGTs?• How much time will the LSGT require of its members?• How can we increase parent and community engagement and involvement in this

process? How can I help? (Parent University and Support Systems) 15

Implementation Rationale

Working in Advance

Ready to go by Day 1 of Charter System

Contract

Transition of the LSC’s to LSGT’s

Implementation across all schools to

ensure equityLeveraging Charter System for

maximum impact

16

Compromises in LSGT Composition

LSGTs will start the same but will be

able to customize size

Principals will be non-voting and will work

closely with the LSGT chair and LSGT team to

nominate community staff

Instructional staff are eligible, not just Teachers

(i.e. Media specialist, instructional coaches,

SST/RTI)

LSGTs can customize structure to have students

vote on select areas (strategic plan vs. budget)

17

Stakeholder Input on LSGT Member StructureLSGT Composition9 voting members* can be increased through SBS process

Principal is a nonvoting member

3 Parents elected by parents

3 Non-Supervisory Instructional Staff elected by staff*

2 Community members recommended by the principal who will consider recommendations from the LSGT, community, and parents, and ratified by a majority of votes of the LSGT*

1 HS/MS student is a nonvoting member* can be amended to vote through SBS process

1 "Swing Seat" to be filled by Parent/Community Member depending on skills needed

Principal and LSGT Chair collaborate on agenda setting

2 year terms with a maximum of 2 terms(following initial staggered terms of 3 and 2 yrs.)

18*Denotes Changes From Draft Application and May BOE Presentation

We need future LSGT Members!

19

http://atlanta.k12.ga.us/candidatebank

Performance Goals

The state-required goals are an aggressive timeline for improvement.

•This goal looks at whether APS as a system is “beating the odds,” i.e., are APS students performing better than they would have otherwise. •Beating the Odds is a growth measure

APS System Average Growth

•This goal looks at each APS school’s Beating the Odds Measure. The goal is to have every school beat the odds, or at least reduce the number of schools not beating the odds each year.

School by School Growth

•This goal requires APS to meet/beat state average for CCRPI by year 2 and beat it each year after that. •APS is 10.5 points lower on the CCRPI than the state average from most recent year of data.

CCRPI System Improvement

20

Creation of Additional Performance Goals

Required goals focus on academic improvement only

APS’s Application focuses on

additional areas for improvement

Additional goals present more accurate picture of our district

improvement

21

College and Career Academy

22

College and Career Academy

Atlanta Public Schools will partner with Atlanta Technical College to develop a College and Career Academy

• The College and Career Academy will be established through the charter system application

• The Academy will enable the district to customize its educational offerings and instructional delivery to meet the needs of an ever-changing community and student body, therefore:

o improving the graduation rateo increasing student attendanceo increasing the opportunity for students to complete multiple pathwayso increasing the opportunity for students to earn industry recognizable

credentialso increasing the number of students earning advanced academic credit

through dual enrollment

• Staying true to our mission of “every student will graduate ready for college and career”

23

College and Career Academy

o Automotive Collision Repairo Carpentryo Constructiono Cosmetologyo Draftingo Early Childhood Care and

Educationo Design and Media Production

Technology

o Electronicso Health Information

Managemento Pharmacy Technologyo Plumbing/Pipe-Fitting

Technology

The College and Career Academy will have the following characteristics:

• Georgia nonprofit corporate status

• A governing Board of Directors

• A dedicated Director accountable to the Board of Directors

• Proposed initial curriculum pathways (to be expanded as needed) in the following college certificate programs:

24

Looking Forward

May• Public Hearings on

the Application• Revisions to the

Application• Community Meetings• Finalize Content for

Application based on input from stakeholders

June• Application

submitted to Board

• If Board approves, APS submits the application to the state June 30th.

July• After application

submission, plans to develop support systems for charter system implementation begin

August/September• Begin transition and

sun-setting of LSCs• Creation of an

Implementation Advisory Committee

• Provide BOE status updates

25

Post Submission TimeframeDate Action

Assuming June 30th Submission, and Fall-Winter 2015 Approval

July-Aug. 2015 Begin planning in-depth transition process for Central Office work flow to support charter system model

Aug 2015 Charter System Open Nights (to be held at each school) to inform community and drum up interest for LSGTs

Sept-Nov. 2015 Flesh out LSGT support system, trainings, manuals, set up voting system, etc.

Nov-Dec. 2015 Training for Central Office and Principals

Nov-Dec. 2016 LSGT Informational Meetings and Orientations

Jan-March 2016 LSGT Elections

March-April 2016 LSGT initial trainings

July 2016 Charter System Contract Term Officially Begins

Cluster planning will continue from present and hopefully conclude by Winter 2016.

26

Strong Students. Strong Schools. Strong Staff. Strong System

27

http://www.atlantapublicschools.us/strongschools

Thank you!

For questions or comments regarding our charter system model, contact Angela Smith

aksmith@atlanta.k12.ga.us

28

DISCUSSION AND ACTION:STUDENT VOTING

29

Should the Student Vote on the LSGT?Consider:

Benefits of the Student having a real stake

Cons of allowing Students to vote

Appropriateness for Students to vote on:

strategic plan, innovative initiatives,

school budget

Remember, LSGTs have delegated power in:

– Personnel Decisions, including a hiring recommendation for principal;

– Financial Decisions and Resource Allocations, school budget, which may include: curriculum costs, supply costs, equipment costs and maintenance and operations costs;

– Curriculum and accompanying instructional materials;– Establishment/monitoring of School Improvement Goals,

including approval of the school improvement plan and oversight of its implementation; and

– Any School Operations that are consistent with school improvement goals.

31

The Work of the LSGTDomain Required Considering

Personnel Input: Selection of Principal Input: Annual feedback on principal's performance/interaction with LSGTInput: Interview Principal

Finance & Resource Allocations

Input: Final recommendation for school budgetInput: #/type of personnel, curriculum costs, supply, equipment, maintenance, operations costs

Autonomy: Develop/manage requests for funding to support new innovative proposals.

Curriculum Input: Curriculum and accompanying instructional materials

Input/Autonomy: Align school's curriculum offerings and modes of delivery to cluster theme.

School Improvement

Autonomy: Establish/monitor achievement of school improvement goals Autonomy: Approval of school improvement plan and oversight of its implementation

Autonomy: Create strategic plan that incorporates school improvement and Title I planning.

School Operations

Input: school operations that relate to school improvement goals and/or charter system goals

Autonomy: Development of community communication strategies and creation of Parent/community involvement/engagement planInput: School system calendar and district-wide initiatives

32

Should the Students Vote?YES, Students Votes

Pros ConsNO, Students = Ex Officio

Pros Cons

Demonstrates the value of students input

Political pressure for students

Student perspective is valuable in certain areas such as, programming and student issues

Student’s voice is not fully represented

Provides check and balance for student concerns

Attendance requirements might be a challenge given student’s demands

Gives students a meaningful way to contribute without political pressure

Preserves student’s input into areas

Student may be scared to vote differently

Student not exposed to controversial school based decisions

Provides official record of student's votes/feelings on subjects

Student potentially exposed to controversial school based decisions

Students will still be able to provide input without the burden of an LSGT workload

Student involved in LSGT workload, including training for budgets, data and governance

Still get to share expertise on school through CEO role

Student Voting on LSGT

• Should Student Reps be allowed to vote on the LSGT?

• A) Yes, on all matters• B) Yes, on limited matters• C) No

Principals’ Feedback

Should student members be allowed to vote A) 0 yes on all mattersB) 9 yes on limited matters, C) 9 no but input can be given

OptionsOption 1: Form a student committee to provide feedback and

recommendations on areas where student perspective is valuable. For example, in order for an LSGT to approve a school-based solution, the student committee would have to review and vet the proposed programming and provide feedback to be included to the LSGT.

• PRO: Demonstrates that APS values student perspective• PRO: Gives students a meaningful way to contribute to

school programming• PRO: Reduces stress and time commitments otherwise

posed by full LSGT membership

OptionsOption 2: Student voting member during appropriate times

of the year only. For example, the student could serve during the school-based solution process and/or during the strategic planning process, but forego the extensive training and time commitment for the budget approval process (which would fall during spring semester--a busy time).

• PRO: Provides students with vote in meaningful areas for which they can contribute

• PRO: Limits stress and time commitment of full LSGT membership

• CON: Still requires extensive time commitment of training and meetings for student member

• CON: Student still exposed to potential lobbying pressure.

OptionsOption 3: Full voting student member. Student is a full

member of LSGT and votes on all matters that come before the LSGT.

• PRO: Provides students with elected vote and voice in all matters in front of school

• CON: Represents a significant year long time investment for student leaders chosen as LSGT student representatives

• CON: Exposes students to stressful lobbying pressure on potentially controversial school-based decisions

• CON: May experience high turnover due to student representatives unable to attend required # of meetings throughout year.