Analysis of Fulton Georgia Autonomy Handbook through lens of application to RI

1. Fulton County
Group 1
Fulton County – Strong Features with Potential Application to RI
District/School State
Policy District policy allows for/requires structural independence
Guiding principles – loose/tight
CBA - Master
Practice Schools deciding on courses schedule and materials
Role of principal more complex -> distributed leadership
Phase in level of autonomy – self-select timing of
implementation.
What aspects of this approach have relevance to RI?
Network system of schools
Schools strategic plans (LSU) with ‘loose’ innovations (blended learning and coaching)
Local control/policy goal
Diverse community
Principal flexibility/autonomy startups
Schools deciding on courses, materials, schedule
Schools hire staff!
Schools control (more) of their budget
Guiding principles: Tight – district determines Loose – schools determine
Play book – specific examples of Loose/Tight
o Tight – stay in compliance
o Loose – principal could manage more effectively than control office
o Request for flexibility
Identify areas in RI schools that may be tight or loose (1. Current 2. Conditional)
Empowers district principals and school governance councils to make decisions aligned with their level of
responsibility and accountability for meeting the diverse needs of all students
Pathway – common understanding – Can/cannot clarification; Guide to what schools should/should not pursue
What aspects of this approach raise concerns/questions?
RFF process
Funding ‘cost neutral’?
School Governance Councils have more parents than teachers – I believe should be VERY heavily teacher-led.
School choice is important in super autonomous settings specifically because of local decisions
Compensation reforms; inconsistent, severe implications for employee morale, sustainability (budget)
All schools within the charter district? How do you transition from the traditional district?
It makes the job of the principal more complex
Are these schools of choice for the kids?
Seems to be an emphasis on structural autonomy, but less on incentives for innovation. Is it assumed that
autonomy would lead to innovation?
Lacks open choice enrollment to build student/parent options enrollment BUT principals choose cohorts within
their system of current attendance boundaries
Central curriculum and some central training (universal)
How much professional training is local or school-based?
Red Flags
o Composition School Governance Council
o Preparing principals for redefined role
o What is the transition plan – how do you change human behavior
o No school choice despite autonomy relative to curriculum/courses
o No structural incentives to innovate autonomy
 Autonomy = innovation