This document contains the results from the May 5th, 2014 meeting of the Educator Autonomy Workgroup in Rhode Island. It includes notes from the meeting where they discussed and revised draft recommendations for increasing educator autonomy. The group provided feedback on the discussion format, identified key autonomy areas to address, and potential actions to support the final recommendations. One member also proposed a new recommendation to be discussed at the next meeting. In summary, the document outlines the workgroup's discussion of draft recommendations for their report to the governor on how to improve educator autonomy in Rhode Island schools.

1. EDUCATOR AUTONOMY WORKGROUP
ATTACHMENT #1
Results from May 5, 2014 Meeting
 Notes from May 5, 2014 Meeting
 Conditions for Autonomy (agreed to)
 Potential Recommendations for Inclusion in Report to the Governor
 Feedback Results from May 5, 2014 Meeting

2. Educator Autonomy Work Group
May 5, 2014
Notes and Revisions on the Straw Recommendations
Straw Recommendation #1: Increase awareness of the existing autonomies at the district and school level. This may be
accomplished by: (a) a series of forums developed and co-hosted by key stakeholders; (b) the development of an autonomy
guidance playbook; (c) communication and outreach to educators and policy makers. We believe this is necessary because there is
varying degrees of understanding of what levels of autonomy educators already have in Rhode Island.
Pros:
- At a minimum, we should do this *we need a baseline*
- Independent from other recommendations
- Knowledge is power
- Consistent message
- Critical
Cons:
- Not clear who documents (?)
- What is the process to develop this?
- How do we clarify differences between and among districts
- How do we account for charters
- Be sure to include charters
- How do you incentivize districts to really do this mindset?
Suggested Edits/Changes:
- Clarify in sentence 1 that it is today
- Define stakeholders
- Ownership (RIDE, Governor’s Office, districts) of clarifying autonomy
- Consider new word for ‘autonomies’ in first sentence (could be ‘local decision making latitude? Discretion’?
- Include at the end what autonomies are desired
- Add to the rationale that it can be used to inform development of legislative strategy
- Replace ‘playbook’ – this is to only be existing.
- Clarify in rationale that the intent is to document existing situation to use as springboard
- Connect autonomy to conditions to determine effectiveness
- Clarify playbook
REVISED -> Straw Recommendation #1: Precondition is define ‘autonomy’ – clarify common language
Increase awareness of the existing autonomies at the district and school level in Rhode Island. This may be accomplished by: (1)
communication and outreach to educators and policy makers (2) a series of forums developed and co-hosted by key stakeholders;
(3) identifying and documenting existing autonomies; (4) a sharing of findings and continuous revisions (ensure all are aware). This is
necessary because there are varying degrees of understanding of what levels of autonomy educators already have in Rhode Island,
and a baseline understanding is required to assess the merits of future autonomy.
*shall be deemed to include charter schools
**further define stakeholders
Attachment #1 Page 1 of 3

3. Educator Autonomy Work Group
May 5, 2014
Notes and Revisions on the Straw Recommendations
Straw Recommendation #2: Provide training and support to educational leaders in the competencies necessary to carry out
effective and successful practices in an autonomous structure. This may be accomplished by: (a) defining the knowledge, skills, and
dispositions of educational leaders in an autonomous setting; (b) developing formal professional development forums; (c) creating
partnership with higher education on the preparation of teacher leaders on autonomous practices. We believe this is necessary
because research, interviews with experts, and experiences of practitioners carrying out autonomy practices stressed need for pre-
and in-service training and support.
Pros:
- Addresses need for support – vital
- Tie-in with Higher Education is positive
- Very important to autonomy success
Cons:
- Without #1 and #3 would recommend going forward
- Cannot be done as a stand-alone
- Be able to tie into all training possible
Suggested Changes/Edits
- Define educational leaders
- Who provides the training? (Clarify)
- Background of trainers and building of trust vital
- Balance tension with accountability and trust to innovate
- Think in an incredible process and not a stand-alone
- Knowledge, skills, and dispositions, need to be emphasized
- Fine line as to detail
- Aspects of #2 are needed to make #3 happen
- Autonomous structure needs to be articulated and connected to #3
- Need to know what the level training exists and gaps
- Need to know the ‘vehicle’ to make this happen
- Think about any parts that could stand alone
- Include financial support/resources
- #1, #3, #2 order of recommendation matters
REVISED -> Straw Recommendation #2: Provide training, support, and resources to educational leaders in the competencies
necessary to carry out effective and successful practices in an autonomous structure. This may be accomplished by: (a) defining the
knowledge, skills, and dispositions of educational leaders in an autonomous setting, as indicated by a needs assessment analysis of
effective practices; (b) developing formal professional development forums; (c) creating partnership with organizations including,
but not limited to, higher education to prepare educational leaders on autonomous practices. We believe this is necessary because
research, interviews with experts, and experiences of practitioners carrying out autonomy practices stressed need for pre-and in-
service training and support.
Attachment #1 Page 2 of 3

4. Educator Autonomy Work Group
May 5, 2014
Notes and Revisions on the Straw Recommendations
Straw Recommendation #3: Develop a legislative strategy in tandem with district, state, and union leadership that fosters
autonomous decision-making and innovation at the district and school level to support student success. This may be accomplished
by (a) creating a working group to draft a legislative bill that fosters autonomous decision-making and innovation; and (b)
collaborating with existing educational partners to generate buy-in for the strategy. We believe this is necessary because legislation
in other states (e.g. Massachusetts) have proven effective in increasing autonomous decision-making an innovation at the school
and district level.
Pros:
- Forces collaboration with stakeholders and decision makers
- Enable people to follow a path to make it happen – even if they already have ability
- Gives clarity to autonomy
Cons:
- What barriers currently exist in RI? Regulations/law – example: Evaluation
- Nervous to couple innovation with autonomy
- Perceived decision power away from school boards
- Unfunded?
- Needs funding to do this work
- Can this happen through a regulatory process?
- What is the difference between autonomous schools vs. decision?
Suggested Edits/Changes:
- Work off another state’s framework
- Define innovation – do you add to general laws – or take away? (Case law could play a roll)
- Add community
- Educate and train community to engage
- How to ensure that stakeholders feel they ‘had a seat at the table’
- Need a process to follow
- Who is leading and involved in the workgroup to create this draft?
FIRST ATTEMPT at revising Straw Recommendation #3: Develop legislation that fosters autonomous decision-making at the
district, school, and classroom to support student success. The legislation will be created by a working group including district,
state, and union leadership. Develop legislation that creates a clear path for autonomous schools in Rhode Island. What are we
trying to do? NO POLLING WAS DONE ON THIS REVISION
Attachment #1 Page 3 of 3

5. Educator Autonomy Working Group
May 5, 2014
Conditions Needed to Support Autonomy
As a set of recommendations are generated, we believe that in order for autonomous practices and decision-
making to take hold, the following conditions are necessary. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree
with these conditions, add any other essential condition(s) that you believe is necessary, and come to the May
meeting prepared to share your point-of-view.
Condition Statement AGREE COMMENTS
1. Trust is needed among and across all level of the educational system.
13 Add community members
2. A collaborative culture focused on fostering student success is
necessary. 12 Add community members
3. Clarity regarding where authority to make decisions resides is key.
12
4. Value must be placed on educational professionals at all levels of the
education system. 13
5. Systems and supports that are responsive to autonomous practices
need to exist. 12
Systems of Support would
need to be clearly defined.
Add Community Members
6. Other: Add ‘community members’ to #’s 1,2,5 - or – add another condition statement.
Attachment #1 Page 1 of 1

6. Educator Autonomy Working Group
June 2, 2014
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POTENTIAL INCLUSION IN REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR
Increase awareness of existing autonomies at the district and school level in Rhode Island.
How it can be realized:
(1) identify and document existing autonomies through a review of existing policies and outreach to
educators and policy makers;
(2) share findings with all education leaders to ensure all are aware and able to use available autonomies;
and,
(3) update the types of autonomy areas that exist on a regular basis.
Why: This is necessary because there are varying degrees of understanding of what levels of autonomy educators
already have in Rhode Island. A baseline understanding is required to not only assess the merits of future
autonomy but also to inform any legislative or regulatory action.
Provide training, support, and resources to educational leaders in the competencies necessary to carry out
effective and successful practices in an autonomous education setting.
How it can be realized:
(1) define the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of education leaders in an autonomous setting, as indicated
by a needs assessment analysis of effective practices;
(2) develop formal professional development forums; and,
(3) create partnerships with organizations including, but not limited to, higher education to prepare
educational leaders on autonomous practices.
Why: This is necessary because research, interviews with experts, and experiences of practitioners carrying out
autonomy practices stressed need for pre-and in-service training and support.
Attachment #1 Page 1 of 1

7. Educator Autonomy
May 5, 2014
Feedback Results
1. Circle how helpful you found today’s process for developing recommendations?
(1=not effective at all -> 5=extremely effective)
4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 3, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5 (AVG: 4.18)
What about the format worked?
- Collaboration/Group Format
- Small group process
- Carousel brainstorming allows for more voices to be heard
- The whole structure was very efficient and effective. The advanced delivery of the work session documentation
was great.
- Group discussion
- Organized and functional, despite the complexity of the issues.
- Yes.
- Small groups having the draft recommendations and passing them around.
- Providing straw recommendations very helpful. Carousel approach with accelerated time slots worked well.
- Clear voice for all.
What could be improved?
- The writing – how can we capture edits without re-writing?
- We will need more time in specifics. How about a RIDE lawyer sitting in so that we can understand where in
regulations some of this can be addressed?
- Discussion as a whole group to clarify comments/suggestions
- None.
- I thought that the small group activity created questions that the entire group needed to address. We all need to
have the same understanding.
2. Which key areas of autonomy do you believe must be part of our final recommendations and should be addressed
at the June 2nd
meeting (please check top 1-2 areas):
Budget XXXXX (5) Staffing XXXX (4)
Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment XXXXXXX (7) Scheduling, Calendar, School Hours XXX (3)
Governance XXXXXXX (7) Other – specify:
ALL – and they are not included now.
Include only as a list of potential areas of change
3. Select from the list below any action that would assist you in supporting and communicating about the Educators’
Working Groups’ final recommendations:
Individual time to review (i.e. 7 business days) all recommendations XXXX (4)
Time to talk over my concerns individually with the co-chairs if needed XXXXX (5)
Extend our meeting time on July 7th
so that we can review all recommendations XXX (X maybe) (3 + Maybe)
Talking points that explain what we did and how we came to the final recommendations XXXX (4)
No additional support needed
Other – please specify:
Time to all entire constituency to review recommendations before final recommendations.
Brief summaries of the work of each meeting.
Attachment #1 Page 1 of 2

8. Educator Autonomy
May 5, 2014
Feedback Results
4. Write your recommendation (using an action verb, how it can be carried out, and why) that you believe has the
greatest potential for improving autonomy practices in RI, and should be discussed at the June 2nd
meeting:
- Will email this.
- Develop specifics.
- Develop internal systems and revise existing systems to support implementation of autonomous structures.
- Delete phrase ‘we believe’ and consider changing to ‘our research has concluded or shown’
- Educator/teacher authority to revise curriculum as suggested by formative assessments and common planning
time/collaboration.
- Would like to see a recommendation that we draft legislation to allow for schools like innovation schools in MA.
- Engage school districts and state level educators in discussion of existing and potential autonomies.
- Developing and executing a legislative/regulatory strategy that enables an autonomy structure at the district
and school levels. (*See attached for recommendation #4)
- Hard work writing together – but worth the effort. Recommendation #3 still has me uncomfortable because I
don’t know the legislative mandates. Maybe switch recommendations #2 and #3.
Attachment #1 Page 2 of 2