• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
The Importance of School District Leadership and Data Driven Decision Making to Enhance NAF Academies
 

The Importance of School District Leadership and Data Driven Decision Making to Enhance NAF Academies

on

  • 775 views

This workshop will illustrate the importance of data-driven decision making in creating pathways to academic success. Further it will share insighs as to how to build district leadership buy in and ...

This workshop will illustrate the importance of data-driven decision making in creating pathways to academic success. Further it will share insighs as to how to build district leadership buy in and support through integrating academies into a district strategic planning process.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
775
Views on SlideShare
775
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000. The three richest people possess more financial assets than the poorest 10% of the world's population, combined [5] [ citation needed ] . The combined wealth of the 10 million millionaires grew to nearly $41 trillion in 2008. [88] In 2001, 46.4% of people in sub-Saharan Africa were living in extreme poverty . [89] Nearly half of all Indian children are undernourished. [90] Tiziana Terranova has stated that globalization has brought a culture of "free labour". In a digital sense, it is where the individuals (contributing capital) exploits and eventually "exhausts the means through which labour can sustain itself". For example, in the area of digital media (animations, hosting chat rooms , designing games), where it is often less glamourous than it may sound. In the gaming industry, a Chinese Gold Market has been established. [124]
  • Participants in Photolanguage enjoy the experience and we have gotten some very important insights on NAF students and academies. There are still challenges & obstacles to collecting data – including Different data points are required for different entities (District, State, NAF requirements) Teachers in general feel that taking time to collect data – takes time away from teaching and learning Teachers are also not trained researchers – leading to questions about what to collect, what is important, how to be systematic & how to record the data Last, there is a fear of retribution from the administration – imagined or not Once the data is collected – there are even more difficulties in what to do with it Lack of comparable data Lack of longitudinal data No user-friendly and integrated data systems. Most of all – is the question of what to do with it next. I’ve had more than one teacher tell me about their data binder – all their students and all their data – and how they carry it around.
  • There are some key important aspects that make data in a day different from classroom walk-throughs: 1) teams with representatives of students, teachers and administrators on each time 2) Promotes a dialogue – as the team is walking from class to class & in the de-briefing 3) Sends a message that the school values student input in addition to teacher & administration’s perspectives 4) Most important, this process stimulates critical reflection and discussion about best practices in and out of the classroom. Best practices include Designing user-friendly instruments Participation of the students in data in a day Participation of the administration in data in a day There is a climate of trust There is a receptiveness to student opinion
  • Questions: How would you calculate positive experience in an academy? For example, in the first class, a required class, the percentage of positive experience could be 100% (6 out of 6) or it could be 32% - 6 out of 19. Which one better reflects the reality in the classroom. Why are the numbers higher for academy classes than for other classes? Why would 50% of students in the NAF Finance Academy @ this particular school willing to leave if external constraints were removed? What is the most important area to improve? Why? How?
  • Having administrators and teachers participate in this research drives the point home. It is one thing to hear guidance counselors are not accessible from an outside observer, it is a very different thing to hear spontaneous laughter when a question is asked. Uniforms: consistency about the rules Cell phones: especially during lunch is a huge issue and fight with students. Students, when asked, are both serious and thoughtful about good classes, good teachers, what they want to learn. Yes, students mentioned the cafeteria food often, and the strict cell phone rules. But most students, most of the time, focused on academic issues such as learning, hands-on activities, tutoring (such as Saturday school)
  • Data = way of expressing an idea such as numbers, images but useless unless it’s organized into a meaningful pattern called information, then we need to breakdown this information into knowledge and Michael Fullan in Leading in a Culture of Change says that knowledge emerges through a collaborative process
  • We identified 10 key performance targets and those data points as our baseline. We compared ourselves to the state average and began to speak to the gap between our students and the students in the rest of the state. We set out to realize improvements in each of our areas by 3 to 4 % points each year so that in the K-12 lifetime of a child who entered Kindergarten in 2006, we would close the achievement gap 12 years later. We used these targets to measure ourselves as a district, but also to set performance gain expectations for each school based on their school’s baseline.
  • From a bureaucratic, dysfunctional, low performing school system to … … a system of high performing, distinctive schools of choice. The attainment of Hartford students in reading, math, science and college readiness will be reflective of the high educational outcomes of the State of Connecticut. Don McAdams: What School Boards Can Do – Book on Reform, Change Leadership and selecting a Theory of Action
  • Provide the structure for our work and for significant changes in practice. From a bureaucratic, dysfunctional, low performing school system to … … a system of high performing, distinctive schools of choice. The attainment of Hartford students in reading, math, science and college readiness will be reflective of the high educational outcomes of the State of Connecticut. Don McAdams: What School Boards Can Do – Book on Reform, Change Leadership and selecting a Theory of Action
  • This is what our matrix looked like this past year. We will continue to look at how each school performs based on expected performance targets.
  • Portfolio approach was revolutionary in Connecticut – an unknown and little understood approach. So let’s look at how we did relative to each of these areas… design, budgeting, staff selection, SGC, new curriculum as baseline for quality Smaller schools, various designs – such as NAF, school choice within zones, community schools, everyone chooses, SBB Talent Management Office OSI matrix State of Schools; Rising Star Breakfast, Convocation, E-Newsletter, redesing community meetings
  • High School, Inc. Gains from Weaver to its own Academy
  • It takes planning, a steady course of action, and a system approach. It also takes innovation and leadership and unpopular decisions. Don’t treat everyone the same!
  • Sustainability
  • These 12 years align with the educational lifetime of a Kindergarten student that began with us in 2006

The Importance of School District Leadership and Data Driven Decision Making to Enhance NAF Academies The Importance of School District Leadership and Data Driven Decision Making to Enhance NAF Academies Presentation Transcript

  • NAF Leadership Summit July 15,2011 San Francisco, CA Lupe Ferran Diaz, Ph.D. Director, School Choice & Parental Options Miami-Dade County Public Schools
  • Miami’s Extreme Contrasts
    • Rich & Poor Glitz & Grime
    • South Beach & Fisher Island
    • Poorest City
  • Low Wage Economy
    • Little Industry; little organized labor
    • Services and retail largest
    • Wages lower than elsewhere
  • High Cost of Housing
    • Rent burden highest in US
      • Nearly ½ of renters spend > 30% of income on rent
    • 41% of homeowners pay > 30% income on mortgage payments
    • At every level of income, central city households, Black households, and suburban Latino households are increasingly living in poorer neighborhoods than whites with comparable incomes.
  • Power
    • Unprecedented power of 1 st generation immigrants, viz. Cubans
    • 55% businesses Latino-owned
    • Blacks: Lost in the Fray
    • Nearly 20% of population, less than 10% of businesses
    • Haitians the most discriminated group only recently matched by Muslims and those from the Middle East
    • Working class whites have left, but professionals and entrepreneurs remain
  • M-DCPS
    • County-wide school system;
    • Fourth largest system in the nation;
    • Management of schools is totally independent of metropolitan and city governments;
    • Nine-member School Board is elected by single member districts;
    • Each of the district’s schools is assigned to one of six Regional Centers.
  • General Information-Five Year Trend *Average teacher’s salary excluding fringe benefits (Salary for ten months). Year Schools Pupils Teachers Salary* 2006-07 378 353,283 22,006 47,179 2007-08 392 347,774 22,393 51,561 2008-09 415 345,150 21,260 50,180 2009-10 427 345,458 20,517 50,180 2010-11 435 347,133 20,322 52,440
  • Summary of top ten languages (other than English) Used as primary language by students Source: Assessment, Research, and Data Analysis, Country of Origin and Language Frequencies. Language # students using as home language Spanish 187,481 Haitian Creole 16,789 French 2,011 Portuguese 1,556 Zhongwen (Chinese) 672 Russian 519 Arabic 460 Urdu 409 Vietnamese 310 Hebrew 273
  • High School and Adult-Vocational Enrollment 2010-11 TOTAL Source: High school: Student Data base system; Adult Vocational: Adult ED. Data Systems. High School Adult/Voc.* 101,276 5,656
  • Enrollment In Magnet Programs, 2010-11 Source: School Choice and Parental Options Program Enrollment Career Academies 14,861 International Programs 12,111 Liberal Art 5,063 Math & Science 4,769 Montessori 733 Visual & Performing Arts 5,881 TOTAL 43,418
  • Free/Reduced Price Lunch Source: Assessment, Research, and Analysis. Elementary K-8 Middle Combined Grades* Senior District Average Eligible Students 76.6% 56.4% 75.5% 65.6% 64.7% 70.2%
  • Graduates *Includes regular and exceptional student diplomas, but excludes certificates of completion. Source: High school: Student data base system, October 2010. 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 High School* 17,058 17,918 18,770 19,139 20,056
  • M-DCPS and NAF
    • 14 Academy of Finance programs
    • 13 Academy of Hospitality and Tourism programs
    • 14 Academy of Information Technology Programs
    • 3 Academy of Engineering programs
    • 44 NAF programs District-wide
    • For 2011-12: 3 additional programs
    • GOAL: Build capacity in existing NAF Programs
    • Assessment Criteria Used to Select NAF Programs for MARC
    • Level of student recruitment activities
    • Participation at/in NAF Academy events
    • Level of communication with the District office
    • Administrative participation/representation
    • Relevant program of study in place
    The MARC Project
  • Results of MARC Instrument 11 Low Performing Academies 17 Performing Academies 11 High Performing Academies
  • Selection of Consultants/Activities
    • Selection of NAF Consultants
      • Reviewed list of retired principals and assistant principals
      • Selected candidates to be interviewed;
      • NAF and district interviewed the candidates;
      • Five candidates were selected.
    • Activities
      • Diagnostics
      • Monthly site visits
      • Professional Development
      • District meetings
  • MARC Success and Things Learned
    • The success of MARC was the interaction between the district, who respectfully listened to consultant feedback, a very committed consultant group, and a partner, NAF who shared knowledge of academy development and tools to support the team.
    • The power of partnerships !
    • Respect school level personnel time
    • Principals also need support
    • Build a bench
    • Respect teachers and the work they do – recognize that they need and want support
  • NAF
    • Domain 1: Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning Teams
    • Interdisciplinary teams are organized around the students the team shares in common. And the student group is kept small. Within a small community students are more likely to form relationships with teachers & the school.
    • The SLC rubric defines the size of the academy, specifies that teachers & students work together for multiple years, and indicates teachers should spend more than half of their time within the Academy.
    • Common planning time is essential and team collaboration strengthens the collective responsibility for students. ( Essential to both models)
    • KEY DIFFERENCES:
    • SLC does not describe interactions in terms of trust, open communication, and shared expectations, but only refers to building strong relationships.
    Core Principle 1: Personalized Learning Environment All students meet high academic standards. (Essential to both models) Personalized environment has an academically rigorous curriculum with relevance to the real work, and builds upon student and community assets. (Essential to both models ) Interactions are defined by trust, respect, open communication, clear, shared expectations & a safe and welcoming climate. (Explicit for NAF; implicit for SLCs) KEY DIFFERENCES: NAF does not specify eliminating or restructuring honors programs SLC
    • Domain 2: Rigorous and Relevant Curriculum
    • SLCs facilitate a more authentic, active form of student learning. Teachers design work that is both challenging and personally meaningful to students . (Active, authentic learning is essential to both models; high standards and relevance to real world is also essential to both models.)
    • The SLC rubric indicates that flexible scheduling is key – for blocks of time to do field work, and projects.
    • The SLC rubric indicates that the most engaging curriculum involves more than half of the student’s instructional day & more than one year of study.
    • KEY DIFFERENCE : Successful SLCs create engaging interdisciplinary curricula through collaboration with community based partners – whereas the curriculum is provided with a NAF academy and is based on industry standards.
    NAF Core Principle #2: Academic Engagement of All Students Educators and students co-construct relevant learning experiences & connect learning to students’ cultural & linguistic communities. Adults actively connect students with resources, guidance and information needed for decisions about the future. NAF provides linkages to paid summer internships – a key component of the NAF model. KEY DIFFERENCES: NAF emphasizes paid internships as a key component to the model. NAF also provides a curriculum for teachers and students to implement – SLCs design their own. SLC
    • Domain 3: Inclusive Program and Practices
    • SLCs are an approach to reducing the achievement gap among students of different economic, linguistic, cultural and racial backgrounds. Students self-select into the program and may purse both honors and remedial work within the program.
    • Successful SLCs include Special Ed and ELL teachers along with guidance counselors into the teaching team.
    • KEY DIFFERENCE: NAF maintains high standards for all students.
    NAF Core Principle #3: Empowered Educators Educators (teachers, student services, administrators) work collaboratively and continue to learn about their field to improve their practice for high student outcomes. Educators have ongoing, job-embedded professional development – and is coupled with support for engaging in new practices . (Essential to both models) NAF model provides common planning time. ( Essential to both models) SLC
    • Domain 4: Continuous Program Improvement
    • Successful SLCs engage in continuous and ongoing reflection on practices – using data to make decisions and monitor the process. The data includes, but is not limited to, student outcome data (attendance, grade, FCAT). ( Essential to both models.)
    • Teams analyze student work & solicit student feedback . (Essential to both models)
    • Teams develop own professional development plan. (Essential to both models.)
    NAF Core Principle #4: Accountable Leaders There is a requirement for a vision & mission statement, along with a strategic plan. Leaders at all levels work with students, schools and communities to establish equitable practices and policies for student learning. (Key Difference) Academy Leaders use data to monitor and communicate progress to all stakeholders, including NAF. (Data-Driven decision making essential to both models). KEY DIFFERENCES: The requirement for a vision, mission statement and a strategic plan is unique to NAF. There is a national organization that provides both support, technical assistance and monitoring. SLC
    • Domain 5: Building (a) & District (b) Support
    • All SLC practices must be supported by both the local school administration and the district.
    • The local school administration needs to staff, schedule and plan professional development to meet SLC needs.
    • The district must allow self-governance for SLCs. (Key Difference)
    • Administration and content-area leaders function as support to the SLCs.
    • School restructures or eliminates at-risk and honors programs so student achievement is not a determinant of SLC membership & high standards are a feature of all programs.
    • KEY DIFFERENCE:
    • SLC rubric discusses school autonomy from state and district levels.
    NAF Core Principle #5: Engaged Community and Youth All facets of the community including parents, business partners, post-secondary education, government agencies are all involved in improving high school and high school outcomes. NAF academies engage community through Advisory Boards. Leaders communicate student outcomes to local advisory boards. Advisory Boards help secure paid internships for students. SLC
    • Core Principle #6: Integrated System of High Standards, Curriculum, Instruction, Assessments, and Supports
    • In a NAF academy there are common expectations for all students and clearly communicated guidelines for success for each grade and including transition to college.
    • The NAF curriculum establishes clear & rigorous standards through work-based and project-based learning. (Emphasis on work-based & project-based learning is mirrored in the SLC commitment to interdisciplinary learning.)
    • Academies develop and utilize multiple assessments, including performance based measures.
    • KEY DIFFERENCES:
    • The established curriculum
    NAF
  • Class Time Challenges & Obstacles Different Data Points Teachers: Not Researchers Fear of Retribution Measuring Outcomes Lack of Integrated Data System What’s Next Lack of Comparable Data Lack of Longitudinal Data
  • Sidney Harris's cartoon demonstrates how to get past those pesky detail steps
  • Encourages Critical Reflection Student Input Promotes Dialogue Representative Teams Important Aspects Teamwork Listening Value Most Important
  • “ It sort of makes you stop and think, doesn’t it.”
  • N = Knowledge Positive Personalize Switch Schools Projects Counselor Creative Writing (Required) 19 6 32% 6/6 7 37% 5 26% 1 5% 4 21% NAF AOIT Academy 28 8 29% 8/8 16 57% 0 0% 6 21% 3 11% NAF Finance (Academy) 28 28 100% 28/28 25 89% 14 50% 0 0% 0 0% NAF AOHT (Academy) 25 25 100% 25/25 20 80% 0 0% 20 80% 10 40% Remedial Math 25 12 12% 8/25 12 48% 5 20% 0 0% 0 0% Totals 125 79 63% 75 125 80 64% 24 19% 27 22% 17 13%
  • Common Themes Statement Number of Students Number of Classes Need more hands-on activities and things like field trips. 93 5 Some teachers help more than others, some are just here to get a paycheck. 74 5 The Uniform Policy 110 5 Cell Phones 65 3 What do you like about your school? The academies 98 5 The new principal is too strict about little things 25 6
    • NAF’s promise:
      • Personalization
      • Empowerment
      • Differentiated Instruction
      • Hands-On Activities
      • Relevant Learning
      • Internships
      • Interdisciplinary projects
      • Connections to the world of work and high school
      • Learning takes place beyond the school
    Student Voice
    • What students want:
      • Teachers who know them.
      • Teachers who listen to their opinions.
      • Hands-on Activities
      • Projects and Problem Based Learning
      • Connected to the real world
      • Field trips with assigned academic work
  • ConnectEDU
    • Alignment to District Goals:
    • Ensure achievement of high academic standards by all students.
    • Develop our students so that they are able to successfully compete in the global economy.
    • Actively engage family and community members to become partners in raising and maintaining high student achievement.
    • Reform business practices to ensure efficiency, effectiveness and high ethical standards.
  • ConnectEDU
    • Goal (Broad statement describing a desired end result or achievement as a successful outcome of the project)
    • Provide a vendor developed and hosted system to senior high school students to assist with course planning, and selection of post-secondary education options including application, scholarships, and direct linkages to colleges and universities
    • Objectives (A measurable means necessary to accomplish stated goals)
    • Current in-district options for course planning and college planning are largely manual and require significant counselor intervention. Connect EDU would provide a portal where students can leverage their existing course credit information into a full featured post-secondary educational planning and selection tool.
  • ConnectEDU
  • ConnectEDU
  • ConnectEDU
  • ConnectEDU
    • Success Measurement (Documented criteria to determine objectives have been met)
    • Evidence of at least 70% of college eligible seniors showing activity in the Connect EDU system in one year of full implementation
    • Evidence of at least 50 college applications being submitted in one year of full implementation
    • Evidence of at least 50 scholarship applications being submitted in one year of full implementation
    • Data driven to knowledge driven
      • Data vs information
    • All educators can get involved in data analysis since it’s all about improving instruction
    • STOP asking: How many passed? What were our scores?
    • START asking: What do they know? What don’t they know? What are we going to do about it?
    • Increase achievement of all students and eliminate any learning gaps
    In conclusion
    • Dr. Lupe Ferran Diaz
    • [email_address]
    • www.choice.dadeschools.net
    Contact
  • NAF Leadership Conference 2011 Systemic Reform: Planning for Success Dr. Christina M. Kishimoto Superintendent of Schools July 15, 2011
    • 25,000 students/City of approx 18 sq miles
    • 93.3% poverty rate
    • Most families headed by a single working parent
    • In the second wealthiest state in the U.S.*
    • The second poorest city per capita in the country*
    • With the greatest achievement gap of all 50 states**
    • * 2000 Census
    • ** National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
    Hartford’s Context
  • Overview of Agenda
    • Where We Started – District Reform
    • Where We Are Today - Sustainability
      • Reform Phases
      • Redefining Ourselves
  • Where We Started Five Years Ago 2006-2011
  • 2006 DISTRICT PERFORMANCE BASELINE 2010-11 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT TARGETS – Revised 5/3/2011 *First Measured in 2008 MEASURE 2006/2007 HPS Baselines 2006/2007 State Average 3 RD GRADE READING 30.3% 69.2% 4 TH GRADE MATHEMATICS 42.5% 80.9% 5 TH GRADE WRITING 58.8% 85.3% 7 TH GRADE MATHEMATICS 43.8% 77.8% 8 TH GRADE SCIENCE 32.3%* 75.2% 10 TH GRADE CAPT READING WRITING 49.8% 56.6% 79.7% 82.3% COHORT GRADUATION RATE 29% 79.7% POST SECONDARY ENROLLMENT 39% 62.9%
  • Our Results Showed Us That We Needed To Change Our Thinking About How We Conduct Our Work
    • 2006-2011: Systemic Reform
      • New Vision and Mission
      • Board engages in Reform Governance in Action
      • Achievement Gap Defined – Data Transparency
      • Created an Accountability Matrix
      • Reform Strategy: Two Pillars of Reform
        • Managed Performance Empowerment Theory of Action (Don McAdams)
        • All Choice System of Schools - Portfolio
    5 - Year Reform Plan
    • Board-Adopted Reform Policies :
    • Redesign/Repurposing Policy
    • Small School Policy
    • Constituent Services
    • School Governance Council Policy
    • New High School Graduation Policy
    • Succession Policy
    • Budgetary Approach
    • Student-Based Budgeting (Money follows the child)
    Reform Governance
    • Phase I
    • Elementary :
    • Core Knowledge Academy at Milner Elementary (PK-8)
    • Latino Studies Academy @ Burns (PK-8)
    • CommPACT School at MD Fox (PK-8)
    • Secondary (middle/high) :
    • Ninth Grade Academy at HPHS
    • Law and Government Acad. at HPHS (10-12)
    • Academy of Engineering and Green Tech at HPHS (9-12)
    • Nursing Academy at HPHS (10-12)
    • Culinary Arts Academy at Weaver (9-12)
    • PK-12 Pathways :
    • Achievement First (K-8 Phase I; 9-12 Phase V)
    • International Baccalaureate (PK-12)
    • Elementary :
    • Montessori Elementary II at Moylan (PK-6)
    • America’s Choice @ SAND Elementary (PK-8)
    • Breakthrough II (PK-8)
    • Secondary (middle/high) :
    • Bulkeley H.S. New American High School Model
      • Lower School – Certificate of Initial Mastery
      • Upper School – 2 pathways: Teacher Prep and Humanities
    • Journalism & Media Academy (9-12)
    • High School, Inc. (9-12)
    • Opportunity High School (alternative high school)
    Five Phases: 2008-2013 Phase II
    • Phase III
    • Elementary :
    • STEM at Annie Fisher (PK-8)
    • Asian Studies Academy @ Dwight/; Bellizzi (PK-8)
    • Betances Early Reading Lab School (PK-3)
    • Secondary (middle/high) :
    • Rawson Middle Grades Academy
    • Elementary :
    • Expeditionary Learning Academy at Moylan (PK-5)
    • Expeditionary Learning Academy at McDonough (6-8)
    • Naylor Professional Development School (PK-8)
    • PK-12 Pathways :
    • Hartford Magnet Trinity College Academy (9-12)
    • Montessori Middle (7-9)*
    Five Phases: 2008-2013 Phase IV Phase V to be determined based on 2010-11 OSI results.
  • Where We Are Relative to the Six Key Elements of a Portfolio Strategy
    • Center for Reinventing Public Education ( Paul Hill )
    • School Autonomy
    • School Choice
    • School Finances
    • Human Capital
    • Performance Accountability
    • Public Engagement
  • Our Results Also Showed Us That We Must Work Together For Our Children’s Future
  • Highlights of Early Results
    • Four* consecutive years of achievement growth
    • 80% of our targets were below 50% achievement level in 2006; today 80% are above the 50% achievement level
    • 3 rd Grade Reading: 15.4% growth
    • 7 th Grade Mathematics: 22% growth
    • 10 th Grade Reading: 14.5% growth; Writing: 11.5% growth
    • Graduation Rate: 11.9% growth; Post-Secondary Enrollment: 9.2% growth
  • Highlights of Two New NAF Academies
    • High School, Inc. (Finance) 2009-2011
    • 17.8% gain in Math at/above proficiency
    • 16.8% gain in Science at/above proficiency
    • 13.1% gain in Reading at/above proficiency
    • 31.0% gain in Writing at/above proficiency
    • HPHS Engineering & Green Technology 2009-2011
    • 11.6% gain in Math at/above proficiency
    • 11.1% gain in Science at/above proficiency
    • 4.2% gain in Reading at/above proficiency
    • 6.3% gain in Writing at/above proficiency
  • What Do These Results Tell Us? We Can Do This!
  • Where Are We Going Next?
  • Systemic Reform: Three Phases
    • Phase I: 2006-2011
    • Challenge Assumptions of Practice
    • Change Practice
    • Produce Results ( show that we can improve !)
    • Phase II: 2011-2016
    • Strategic Alignment ( the birth of a new HPS !)
    • Accelerate Results through lessons learned
    • Phase III: 2016-2018
    • Sustained Practice: State/national model
    CK: 2011-12 Strategic Planning 2011
  • Strategic Alignment for Closing the Achievement Gap Third Grade Promise Middle Years Redesign College Readiness Relevant Curriculum School Design Fidelity Capacity Building Quality Instruction Innovative Leaders College and Career Success CK: 2011-12 Strategic Planning 2011 Family & Community Engagement
  • Sustained Practice
    • Increase Capacity at Central Office :
    • Institutional Advancement
    • PK-12 Assistant Superintendent
    • Talent Management
    • Improve Instructional Leadership :
    • School Quality Meetings
    CMK: 2011-12 Strategic Planning
  • “ Hartford Public Schools will serve as the State Capital’s Portfolio District of Excellence” Strategic Vision CK: 2011-12 Strategic Planning 2011