Jessica de Barros Broad Residency Capstone 2010

Redesigning School Improvement Planning in Seattle Public Schools

Abstract and Introduction

This paper will describe Seattle Public Schools’ creation of a new school improvement planning,

budgeting and reporting process guided by student data and a new school performance and

accountability framework. My primary roles were to: communicate the new planning process and

framework to internal stakeholders, including principals and district leadership; develop a common set

of interventions supported by the district; and, recommend which school improvement goals the district

should invest in. This project has resulted in school goals that are more focused and responsive to

student data, differentiated central office responses to schools based on student performance, use of

common interventions across the district, strategic use of funding to support lower-performing schools,

and more integrated support of schools among central office departments.

Situation

Seattle Public Schools (SPS) has historically not set clear targets at the system, school or individual

student level; those that have been set have not been robust enough to serve as a foundation for

effective performance management. Progress against targets has rarely been measured and

measurements that have existed have been vague. Further, there has been little transparency of

progress for the public and staff. The district has also lacked basic systems, processes, tools and trainings

to enable better performance management at the system, school or individual level. This paper will

focus on the creation of a robust system at the school level to set clear targets and monitor progress

toward goals.

For several years before the creation in 2008 of the district’s strategic plan, Excellence for All, Seattle

Public Schools managed schools with a performance empowerment model that was highly

1
 Jessica de Barros Broad Residency Capstone 2010

decentralized. Under this system, there was inadequate support from central office to schools and little

accountability for school performance, which led to uneven performance across the district.

Excellence for All set forth a clear plan to adopt a performance management framework to guide work at

the district, school and individual levels. The plan called for clearly defined and understood goals, tools

to measure progress, and actions based on data. At the school level, the performance management

framework set the expectation that principals would use data to develop strategic student achievement

goals and more frequently monitor and report progress toward goals. At the district level, the

performance management framework established the need for more robust school improvement

planning tools and for the district to respond to schools differently based on data.

Benchmarks

Seattle Public Schools’ performance management system drew on many elements implemented by

other districts. For example, SPS: developed a five-year strategic plan with clear academic achievement

goals; created tools to track progress toward district goals (i.e., district scorecard, school report cards,

and school improvement plans); segmented schools to target district support based on student

performance and growth; and instituted structures to promote frequent review of performance data at

all levels.

In particular, SPS’ work was guided by performance management efforts in Charlotte-Mecklenburg

Schools (CMS) and the Los Angeles Unified School District. Similar to CMS, SPS faced a challenge in

identifying and streamlining effective interventions at the school level. Not only were schools

implementing an array of both effective and ineffective interventions, but the district also had no

system in place to track which interventions were being implemented across schools.

2
 Jessica de Barros Broad Residency Capstone 2010

A key difference between SPS’ performance management of schools and other districts’ approaches was

the segmentation methodology, which distinguished schools with overall high performance from

schools with overall high performance and no achievement gaps based on poverty. That is, the highest

level of segmentation under SPS’ framework is high achievement with no or very small achievement

gaps.

Organizational Context & My Contribution

The school improvement planning process impacted every school in the district and was a key element

of the district’s strategic plan. The overall performance management initiative was led by the district

Strategic Planning office, with key pieces developed by the Research, Evaluation & Assessment (REA)

department. I supported both of these departments through a matrix reporting relationship, while also

reporting to the Chief Academic Officer.

My first role in redesigning the school improvement planning process was to revise the Continuous

School Improvement Plan (C-SIP) template. The new C-SIP template, which I created in summer 2008

with Brad Bernatek, REA Director, strategically guided principals through an inquiry-based planning

process that responded to school data, included measurable milestones and metrics for tracking

progress, aligned with the district’s strategic plan, and was more tightly focused on a select number of

goals.

The next step of this project was to create a web-based C-SIP that would include drop-down menus of

focus areas, strategies and metrics to further streamline the number of interventions schools used and

3
 Jessica de Barros Broad Residency Capstone 2010

allow the district to track effectiveness. This project was led by Marina Groenewald, REA Program

Evaluator. The on-line C-SIP will be implemented district-wide in fall 2010.

A key element of the school improvement planning process was to not only strengthen the quality of C-

SIPs, but to also change the system in central office to support schools. Schools were segmented into

five levels depending on student achievement, student growth (gains and trend), and the achievement

gap. Based on segmentation, I led the process to allocate supplementary funds to schools with the goal

of accelerating student achievement. Funds were held back from all schools, then redistributed based

on student achievement and other school needs.

Key Actions & Decisions

The steps I took to lead the school improvement allocation process were to:

1. Create a template for schools to write proposals for additional school improvement funding

(above and beyond their “regular” school budget allocations from central office)

2. Develop a list of district-supported interventions from which principals were directed to select

for school improvement strategies in reading, math and social-emotional areas, by gathering

recommendations from content specialists in the district’s Curriculum and Instruction, and

Support, Prevention and Intervention departments

3. Review school improvement proposals and clarify school needs with principals

4. Review proposals and make initial recommendations with curriculum and instruction

department staff to ensure alignment with other district priorities

5. Present proposals to district leadership including the Superintendent and her cabinet

4
 Jessica de Barros Broad Residency Capstone 2010

6. Recommend final school improvement investments with the highest likelihood of improving

student achievement.

Depending on schools’ segmentation categories, I was more or less directive on the interventions I

recommended for schools. Following the district’s school performance framework, schools received

different levels of support in the forms of leadership, instruction, materials, programs and use of time

during the school day, based on segmentation. Schools in the lowest-performing groups received the

most intensive support from the district, while schools in the highest-performing groups received less

direct involvement from the district. The Chief Academic Officer directed principals of lower-performing

schools to select interventions from the specific list I had developed. The intervention list included

strategies that were research-based, had a track record of success and that the district could realistically

and immediately support. The framework included foundational strategies that every school was

expected to employ, as well as targeted and intensive interventions, which lower-performing schools

were required to implement, in each content area.

Process & Timeline

The school improvement process began as part of the district’s overall performance management

system in June 2008. The district’s differentiated support of schools based on segmentation began in

the 2009-10 school year with 12 schools, and was expanded to 37 schools in the 2010-11 school year.

Beginning in 2011-12, all schools (93) in the district will received differentiated support based on

performance and growth.

5
 Jessica de Barros Broad Residency Capstone 2010

Common Barriers & Key Success Factors

We learned many lessons from the first phase of school improvement in 2009-10. First, the quality of

school improvement plans was mixed. Schools proposed too many proposed interventions and not

enough bold or innovative strategies. Also, the interventions schools proposed didn’t align well with

other existing supports in their schools. Secondly, we found that central office was not structured to

support schools in a coordinated manner, which made deployment of school improvement resources

cumbersome. No single office or individual other than the Strategic Planning Director and I “owned” the

school improvement process.

Another barrier to successful school improvement was the fact that principals were not accustomed to

being directed, which diminished our control over interventions. Perhaps as a result of this disconnect

in our goals (principals having the goal of continuing to control decision-making on school improvement,

and central office having the goal of providing differentiated support and direction), a survey of the 12

principals administered after phase 1 of implementation indicated that only 36 percent found the school

improvement tools (i.e., the template and new school report cards) helpful in their everyday work. This

finding led our team to develop the detailed list of interventions used in phase 2.

After phase 1 of implementation, our team realized we needed a formal policy to codify the earned

autonomy model of differentiated support from central office. The School Board passed a policy in early

2010, giving formality to our new school performance framework and accountability model.

Questions to Ask

Before embarking on a school improvement planning initiative, districts should consider the degree of

control they wish to have over the interventions schools use to improve student achievement. The level

6
 Jessica de Barros Broad Residency Capstone 2010

of control needed should guide the process and tools used. It is also necessary to ask whether the

district has the capacity to track efficacy of interventions. For example, SPS does not yet have a system

in place to strategically track whether our list of interventions is working well, and under which

circumstances. Finally, pooling district resources and redistributing them for school improvement

requires central office to work much more collaboratively than the work style found in most districts.

Rather than working on provision of one type of service, staffs in various departments must work with

one another to come up with solutions to problems such as how to meet grant compliance

requirements and use grant funding to meet school needs.

Required Resources

In order for a school improvement planning process to be implemented successfully, resources and job

functions must be realigned to support school success. This requires all staffs at all levels of

management to be bought in to the school improvement process, and to be willing to structure their

work differently. The team I worked on included staff from the Budget, Human Resources, Grants,

Strategic Planning, and School Improvement offices. This type of cross-functional team should be the

norm, as opposed to the exception, in order for coordinated school improvement to take root in a

district.

It is also necessary to align the timelines of all processes related to school improvement in a district. For

example, as a result of SPS’ redesigned school improvement process, the timelines for school budgeting,

student assessment and reporting on progress were all aligned with school improvement (see Appendix

7, Annual School Improvement Timeline).

Greatest Lessons Learned

7
 Jessica de Barros Broad Residency Capstone 2010

In addition to the lessons written above, I learned the importance of persistence, communication and

collaboration by leading the school improvement project. For example, principals were confused about

what the terms “performance management” and “school improvement” meant for them – whether they

would receive more funding, be labeled as “bad” or “good” schools, or whether it was an initiative that

would simply go away. I was required to persistently communicate with principals so they understood

the magnitude of the initiative and the way it changed their role to one that was less powerful, but also

so they understood the goal was to improve student achievement. As a result of this project, I also

better understand the need to build trust among principals regarding the notion that schools and the

central office have the same goals in mind for children even when the district is directing schools to

implement interventions that are not the schools’ first choices.

Finally, I have learned that one or two individuals in an organization can greatly improve processes to

support schools, by carefully studying the problem and proposing solutions that have potential to

benefit multiple stakeholders. For example, during phase 2 of school improvement, I noticed many

schools with very low achievement levels requested both reading and math coaches. I proposed to the

Chief Academic Officer that these schools needed pedagogical coaching as opposed to coaching in

specific content areas. Not only might this help address the root problem impacting student

achievement in these schools, but it would also be a more cost-effective strategy if the district only

invested in one coach per school as opposed to one coach per content area per school. As a result, the

district created a new category of coach for the 2010-11 school year focused on pedagogy and

leadership of professional learning communities – a higher-impact, systemic intervention.

Outcomes

8
 Jessica de Barros Broad Residency Capstone 2010

As a result of the school improvement planning process, there is now greater transparency of goals and

progress for every school and for the district as a whole. In addition, the district has predictable

interventions for schools based on performance, and interventions are streamlined and tracked across

schools. Schools needing the most support receive it; schools that are excelling for all students are

recognized. A cultural shift is already underway – school leaders and central office staff have already

shifted their thinking to focus on differentiated responses based on performance. For the 2010-11

school year, $5 million was allocated to 37 schools for specific interventions based on student

performance.

Another sign of progress is the fact that central office departments are working together as “school

support teams” to provide central coordination of services to schools. Further, the ground is laid – even

spelled out in board policy – for aggressive moves such as principal replacement or school closure for

persistently low-performing schools.

Seattle Public Schools’ new school improvement planning process shares many characteristics of other

districts’ school improvement processes, yet the coordination of central office departments to

collaboratively support schools breaks new ground as a model for other districts. The district’s goal is

for central office departments to treat schools as “customers” and for department staff to work

together across long-standing organizational structure lines to meet the needs of those customers.

Ideally, this model aligns school improvement plans and central office work, so central office is

organized in a way to best support school goals. If I were involved in this type of reform effort in

another district, I would emphasize the critical nature of central office support for schools as a necessary

element to successful school improvement. I would also secure the commitment of central office

9
 Jessica de Barros Broad Residency Capstone 2010

cabinet members and department heads to hold their staff members accountable for meeting school

needs.

Appendices

Appendix 1: 2008-09 C-SIP template

Appendix 2: 2010-11 C-SIP on-line tool screen shots

Appendix 3: School Improvement Proposal Template

Appendix 4: District List of Interventions

Appendix 5: School Board Policy on Performance Management

Appendix 6: Analysis of 2010-11 School Improvement Investments

Appendix 7: Annual School Improvement Timeline

10