SXSW EDU Implementation Workshop: Introductory Slides

LastModified7/28/20142:41:26AM
Implementation: A
Reformer’s Essential
Skill
An introduction to the “delivery”
methodology for managing and
monitoring implementation
July 27, 2014

1©2014 Education Delivery Institute
The public sector in general – and education in particular – face
increasing pressure for results
Productivity
imperative for the
education sector
Pressure for
enhanced
learning
outcomes
Pressure to
prepare
students to
meet
workforce
needs
Recession and budget
cuts: pressure to utilize
public funds wisely

In the face of similar challenges, Prime Minister Blair issued a call for
change in June 2001…
“…a mandate for
reform…
and an instruction to
deliver”
From the remarks of Tony Blair after winning his
second election in June 2001.

…He founded the Prime Minster’s Delivery Unit (PMDU) that year to
help the British government implement his agenda
Key activities of the PMDU
Monitor and report on the delivery of the
Prime Minister’s top priorities
Identify key barriers that prevent
improvements and actions needed to
strengthen implementation
Strengthen departmental capacity to
deliver through better planning and
sharing knowledge about best practice
Selected targets that the PMDU oversaw
Education:
▪ 11-year-old English proficiency
▪ 11-year-old Math proficiency
▪ 14-year-old English proficiency
▪ 14-year-old Math proficiency
Health:
▪ Heart disease mortality
▪ Cancer mortality
▪ Max waiting time for non-emergency surgery
▪ Emergency room waiting time
▪ Physician appointments
Crime:
▪ Street crime
▪ Burglary
▪ Car crime
▪ Offenses brought to justice
Transportation
▪ Road congestion
▪ Train punctuality

Within four years, the government was on track to hit over 80% of its
high-priority targets
Targets on track, percent
December 2004
17
83
December 2003
47 53
July 2004
62 38

How did they do it?

The “delivery” approach that the PMDU invented focuses relentlessly
on four disarmingly simple questions
“delivery” (n.) is a systematic process through which system leaders
can drive progress and deliver results.
It involves asking the following questions consistently and rigorously:
1 What are you trying to do?
2 How are you planning to do it?
3 At any given moment, how will you know whether you are on track?
4 If not, what are you going to do about it?

Beneath these questions are 15 essential elements of effective
implementation, each with an accompanying set of tools
Plan for
delivery
Develop a
foundation
for delivery
Understand
the delivery
challenge
A. Evaluate past
and present
performance
B. Understand
drivers of
performance
and relevant
activities
A. Determine your
reform strategy
B. Set targets and
establish
trajectories
C. Produce delivery
plans
A. Establish
routines to drive
and monitor
performance
B. Solve problems
early and
rigorously
C. Sustain and
continually build
momentum
Drive
delivery
A. Define your
aspiration
B. Review the
current state of
delivery
C. Build the delivery
unit
D. Establish a
“guiding
coalition”
2 3 41
Create an irreversible delivery culture
5
A. Build system capacity all the time
B. Communicate the delivery message
C. Unleash the “alchemy of relationships”

The Education Delivery Institute (EDI) is a nonprofit that was founded
to spread and scale these tools for use in American education reform
EDI K-12 partner systems States
States, districts, and
schools
EDI’s mission is to
partner with K-12
and higher
education system
leaders at the state
and local level and
invest in their
capacity to
deliver
results. We have
worked with over
30 state, district,
and school leaders
to put these tools
into practice.

Case Study: The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education (ESE)

Massachusetts began its journey with an internal and external review
of its existing capacity to use the delivery tools
Sample section of rubric used for reviewing delivery capacity
Aspect of
delivery
Questions to consider Weak delivery (1) Strong delivery (4)
Current
state and
rationale
3A. Determine
your reform
strategy
Does the state
education agency
take a cohesive
approach to its
interventions and
try and maximize
synergies and
understand inter-
dependencies?
■ Does the state education
agency take a cohesive
approach to its reform
efforts?
■ Is there routine analysis of
different strategies and
interventions, particularly at
different campuses, that
compare both impact and
implementation
requirements?
■ Is the combined effect of
chosen interventions and
actions greater than the
effects of the single
interventions on their own?
■ Combination of interventions
lacks coherence. Little or no
benefit arises from
implementing all the
interventions as part of a
single strategy (i.e. combined
effect is not greater than the
sum of the parts)
■ Little quantitative analysis of
different combinations of
interventions. Decisions
made without relying on
evidence
■ Different combinations of
interventions analyzed in
terms of expected impact,
cost, feasibility, scale, rigor,
and requirements for skill
and participation along the
delivery chain(s); this
analysis informs the choice
of interventions
■ Chosen combination of
interventions represents a
coherent strategy,
interventions are
complementary or
reinforcing
1 2 3 4
3. Plan for Delivery

This review produced a series of quick judgments that allowed the
team to focus its efforts early on
Massachusetts Capacity Review Results, August 2010
1. Develop
Foundation
for Delivery
2. Understand
the Delivery
Challenge
3. Plan for
Delivery
4. Drive
Delivery
5. Create an
Irreversible
Delivery Culture
Define your
aspiration
Review the
current
state of
Delivery
Build the
Delivery
Unit
Establish a
Guiding
Coalition
Evaluate past
and present
performance
Understand
the drivers
of
performance
and relevant
system
activities
Determine
your reform
strategy
Set targets
and
trajectories
Produce
Delivery
plan
Establish
routines and
drive
performance
Solve
problems
early and
rigorously
Sustain and
continually
build
momentum
Build
system
capacity all
the time
Communicate
the Delivery
message
Unleash the
“alchemy” of
relationships

In October 2010, the ESE defined its priority goals and assigned
leaders to them at EDI’s Harvard Institute
These delivery goals are closely aligned with their Race to the Top goals
Delivery Grade 3
reading
Grade 8
math
College &
career
readiness
Turnaround Data
systems
Educator
effective-
ness
Goal
leader
Julia Julia John Lynda Jeff Claudia
Goal mgr Sue Barbara Keith Lise Rob Liz
RTTT Curriculum
and
instruction
Assess-
ment
College &
career
readiness
Turnaround Data
systems
Educator
effective-
ness
(except
eval)
Educator
evaluation
Exec
sponsor
Julia Bob John Lynda Jeff Claudia Karla

To coordinate the agency’s efforts on the goals, the Commissioner
created a Delivery Unit like the PMDU
The DU has three full-time team members and reports directly to the Commissioner
Delivery Unit
Commissioner
Goal leader
for college
and career
readiness
(associate
commiss. for
student
support,
career, and
education
services)
Director of Planning,
Research, and Evaluation
Other staff
in office
Delivery
team
Support
and
challenge
Goal leader
for 3rd
grade
reading
and 8th
grade math
proficiency
(associate
commiss. for
curriculum
and
instruction)
Goal leader
for
educator
effective-
ness
(director of
educator
policy,
preparation,
and
leadership)
Goal leader
for school
turnaround
(senior
associate
commiss. for
accountabilit
y and
targeted
assistance)
Goal leader
for data
systems
(deputy
commiss.)

The DU began the planning process by coordinating priority strategies
around their identified goal areas

Each delivery plan describes priority projects in detail…
The delivery plan highlights the following
information for each project:
 Description
 Leadership
 Scope
 Activities
 Timeline
 Stakeholders
 Effects on the Target
 Performance Management
 Project Risks

…and includes delivery chains with potential weaknesses and
solutions

Each plan also includes a “trajectory” with an estimate of the impact
each strategy will have on the goal
Example: College and Career Readiness Trajectory
68%
70%
72%
74%
76%
78%
80%
82%
84%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
PercentageofStudentsGraduatingwithMassCore
Baseline MassCore Implementation Mass Model Academic Support
82.5%
70%70%70%70%70%
73%
71.4%
79.8%
Graduating Class Year

To keep the Commissioner informed of progress, the DU established a
series of routines, consisting of bimonthly memos and stocktakes
Calendar of delivery routines for Massachusetts Department of Education, 2011
JanGoals Feb Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct DecMar Nov
Use of data
College and career
readiness
3rd grade reading and 8th
grade math proficiency
Teacher and school leader
effectiveness
Turnaround of lowest
performing schools
Stocktake
Memo
Additional attention for
goals that are lagging
Staggered starts to
each of the goals
and plans

The bimonthly memos provide frequent updates on key challenges
and immediate actions …
Immediate actions for the
commissioner
Likelihood of delivery for each
core strategy in current and
prior periods, based on most
recent data and qualitative
assessment
Additional detail on the
evidence underlying the
likelihood of delivery for each
core strategy
Interim data on leading
indicators to inform decisions

…while stocktakes provide a more in depth report on delivery goal
progress

Every routine is anchored in detailed analysis to understand drivers of
performance across the state
Example: Map of performance vs. participation in state initiatives

This analysis informs comparative judgments of progress, which help
to focus leadership attention on critical issue areas
Example: league table from Massachusetts stocktake on college and career readiness
High School
Turnaround
R N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Policy
MassCore Policy
and
Implementation
AR AR AG AG AR AG AR AR AG AG AR Policy
Early Warning
Indicator
System
AR AR AG AG AR AG AR AR AR G AG Implementation
Academic
Support
AG AG AG AG AG AR AR AG AR AR AG
Embedding
Change
Mass School
Counseling
Model
AG AG AG AG G AG AG AG AG AR AR Implementation
Connecting
Activities
AG AG AG AG AG AG AG AG AG G AG Implementation
High School
Graduation
Initiative
AG AG G AG G G AG AG G G AG Implementation
Two
strategies
One cross-cutting
functional area

In fall 2011, these routines identified stalled progress for the agency’s
Grade 3 reading goal
The DU conducted a priority review of the current strategies in this goal area, their state of
implementation, and their likelihood of delivering substantial impact
Problem Statement: How can MA DESE significantly improve Grade 3 student
achievement in literacy by 2015, and what is an ambitious yet reasonable target?
Specifically:
(1) What combination of strategies will enable most improvement, given
current resourcing? How should existing strategies be modified or scaled up?
Should new strategies be added? And, How can MA DESE be sure that strategies are
helping students and districts most in need?
(2) Where would additional resources have the most impact, and what are
potential ways to increase resources? What is the likely impact of the Grants
Coordination work? Are there potential partnerships to consider?
(3) What are ambitious yet reasonable targets and trajectories, and what
leading indicators should MA DESE track in order to be alerted if action is required
before end of year results?

Policy Changes
▪ Increased focus on ELL
students
▪ Provided more money and
resources for development
of model curriculum units
▪ Accelerated the timeline for
the availability of these units
▪ Prioritized targeted supports
to teachers in grades 1
through 3
Initial Results: % Advanced Grade 3 ELA
The priority review provided an increased focus which led to
important policy changes and promising initial results

 Messages on agency strategies, differentiated by audience
 Master presentation deck of stock slides by audience
 Two-page quick reference guide
 Graphics to illustrate the strategies and how they support our agency’s
overall goal
 Improved ESE logo
 Word and PowerPoint Templates
 Weekly Update (supers, principals)
 Posters
Communications Tools
The DU complements these efforts with a communications strategy to
create unified messages around their priority initiatives
 Build understanding and support
 Demonstrate how the separate pieces fit together
 Create a sense of urgency
 Help to make communications an agency-wide priority
Goals

▪ Increased focus on student outcomes
▪ Shared language across agency
▪ Focus on key deliverables and distribution to the field
▪ Better use of data
▪ Improved ownership of initiatives
Agency Culture
 CCR: 5-year graduation rate has improved to 84.7% (initial
trajectory estimate was 85%)
 Turnaround: 30 of 34 level 4 schools have shown improvement in
ELA CPI; 28 of 34 have shown improvement in Math
‒ Special education students in these schools exceeded
proficiency targets in both ELA and Math
‒ ELL students in these schools exceeded proficiency target in ELA
 Data Use: Priority projects are all on budget, within scope, and the
majority are on time
Student
Outcomes
As a result of their focused delivery efforts, Massachusetts has seen
substantial progress in a number of key areas

We hope to share more stories like this – and tools to make them your
own – at our workshop
At our workshop, you will…
▪ Explore more case examples like this one – drawn from the
real-life experiences of leaders on the forefront of the “delivery”
movement
▪ Learn how to use some of the tools that Massachusetts used,
and apply them to a real-life “problem of practice” that you are
struggling with today
▪ Reflect on how you can best use these tools to change the way
your school or school system does business to improve student
outcomes at scale

SXSW EDU Implementation Workshop: Introductory Slides

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to SXSW EDU Implementation Workshop: Introductory Slides

Similar to SXSW EDU Implementation Workshop: Introductory Slides (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

SXSW EDU Implementation Workshop: Introductory Slides