exploring the pathway to rapid district improvement

8/2/2019 Exploring the Pathway to Rapid District Improvement

1/72

ExploringthePath

waytoRapidDistr

ictImprovement

Brett Lanefor the Center on Innovation & Improvement


2/72

Information Tools TrainingPositive results for students will come from changes in the knowledge, skill, and behavior of their teachers and parents.

State policies and programs must provide the opportunity, support, incentive, and expectation for adults close to the lives

of children to make wise decisions.

The Center on Innovation & Improvement helps regional comprehensive centers in their work with states to provide

districts, schools, and families with the opportunity, information, and skills to make wise decisions on behalf of students.

The Center on Innovation & Improvement is administered by the Academic Development Institute (Lincoln, IL) in

partnership with the Temple University Institute for Schools and Society (Philadelphia, PA) and Little Planet Learning

(Nashville, TN).

A national content center supported by theU. S. Departmentof Educations Ofce of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Award #S283B050057

The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reect the position of the supporting agencies,

and no ofcial endorsement should be inferred.

2009 Academic Development Institute. All rights reserved.

Design: Pam Sheley

Editing: Pam Sheley & Lori Thomas


3/72

Brett Lanefor the Center on Innovation & Improvement


4/72

Acknowledgement

The author of this report and the leadership of the Centeron Innovation and Improvement acknowledge and givea heartfelt thanks to the leaders of the Burrton SchoolDistrict and the Kansas City Kansas Public School District.

Thank you for opening your respective districts to us andfor the considerable time that you provided in arrangingsite visits and scheduling interviews and focus groupswith a wide range of stakeholders. Without your warmwelcome and willingness to engage in open and candidconversations, this report would not have been possible.

Kansas City Kansas Public Schools

We thank Dr. Jane Shackelford, Superintendentof the Kansas City Kansas public schools and Mr.David A. Smith, Assistant to the Superintendent forCommunication, for providing the author with the subtlecontext needed to understand how a large urban districtengages in comprehensive district improvement.

Burrton Public Schools

We thank (former) Superintendent Dale Herl, AssistantPrincipal Josh Meyer, the School Board and the teachers of

Burrton Public Schools for providing such rich informationand detail about how rural districts can transform theirapproach to teaching and learning.

The author thanks Dr. Lauren Morando Rhim of PublicImpact for reviewing and providing feedback on an initialdraft of the District Improvement Framework.


5/72

Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5Rapid District Improvement ......................................................................................................... 6The Framework ........................................................................................................................... 9Core District Functions ..............................................................................................................10Improvement Capacities ............................................................................................................11The Rapid District Improvement Pathway ........................................................................ 13

Introduction to Case Studies .....................................................................................................20Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools (KCKPS): A Case Study of a Rapidly Improving

District ............................................................................................................... 21

Catalyzing Conditions for Rapid Improvement ............................................................ 22Dening and Communicating a System-wide Improvement Effort ............................... 24Becoming an Improvement Oriented Learning Organization ........................................ 26Key Features of KCKPS Improvement Effort ............................................................... 27Summary ................................................................................................................... 35Supplemental Readings...............................................................................36

Burrton Public Schools: A Case Study of a Rapidly Improving District ........................... 39

Catalyzing Conditions for Rapid Improvement......................................................................40Dening and Communicating a System-wide Improvement Effort.......................................42Becoming an Improvement-Oriented Learning Organization................................................43Key Features of Burrtons Improvement Effort ............................................................ 43Summary ..............................................................................................................................47

Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 49

References..................................................................................................................................53Supplemental References ...........................................................................................................54Appendix A ..................................................................................................................... 57

Appendix B ................................................................................................................................63Appendix C ................................................................................................................................65About the Author .......................................................................................................................68


6/72


7/72

Districts are uniquely posi-

tioned to be able to play a cen-tral role in dramatically improv-ing schools and the teachingand learning that takes placein schools (Applebaum,2002; Cawelti & Protheroe,2003; Childress, et al., 2006;McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003;Massell & Goertz, 2002; Rorrer,et al., 2008; Snipes, et al.,2002; Togneri & Anderson,2003). Districts have the abil-

ity to develop policy and exertsignicant control over how

improvement efforts are imple-mented, in that they controlresources and make stafng

decisions; they have the abil-ity to coordinate professionaldevelopment and training forall district and school staff;and they have the authority tomodify policy to support school-

based improvement efforts(Berman & McLaughlin, 1978;Elmore & McLaughlin, 1988;

Spillane, 1988; Spillane et al.,2009). However, districts arebureaucratic institutions thatalso have a tendency to createbarriers to dramatic schoolimprovement and are oftenseen, along with school boards,as a source of any number ofissues that stie creative and

innovative school improvement(Chubb & Moe, 1990; Hess,1999; Hill et al., 1997).

Over the past 30 years, effortshave been directed towardsnding ways to improve indi-

vidual schools1 rather than

1 The New American Schools and thefederal Comprehensive School ReformDemonstration program illustrate the focuson schools rather than districts, althoughone of the ndings to come out of the NAS

build the capacity of dis-

tricts to engage in sustainableimprovement efforts (Rorrer,et al., 2008). A tremendousamount of learning has comeout of efforts to scale-up school

improvement efforts (Datnow,2002; Fullan, 1999; Leithwood,2006; Schmoker, 1999). Weknow (for the most part) howto improve schools, but we donot know precisely how to do soat scale (Berends et al., 2002;

Hatch, 2002). We also knowthat districts do have a critical,and perhaps an essential roleto play in supporting dramaticand rapid improvement efforts.Recently, state education agen-cies have pragmatically come tothe realization that they cannotsupport individual schools on aone-by-one basis and are work-

ing to gure out ways to build

and leverage the capacity ofdistricts to catalyze dramaticimprovements in schools andclassrooms (Sunderman, 2006;Unger et al., 2008).

Concurrent to the recent (sincethe early 1990s) researchon school improvement is asmaller, yet growing, researchbase on district improvementconsisting primarily of dis-trict case studies of improv-ing districts (or of districtsthat have tried to improve).

This body of research hascatalogued the various char-acteristics seen in improvingdistricts and the various dis-trict strategies that appear topromote school improvementeffort was that scalable school improvementwas not likely without positive involvementfrom the district and other stakeholders(Berends et al., 2002).

The purpose of thisreport is to describe aFramework for District

Capacity Building and

Improvementand, throughthe use of two illustrativecase stories, explore howdistricts can engage in

rapid and sustainableimprovement efforts. Thesupporting research,our framework, and acorresponding set of rapidimprovement indicators isprovided here and in thefollowing pages, followedby case stories ofBurrtonPublic Schools (a ruraldistrict in central Kansas)and Kansas City, KansasPublic Schools, an urbandistrict with over 19,000students. Included in thereport is a summary ofissues for consideration bystate ofcials and districts

focused on creating theconditions necessaryto catalyze rapid andsustainable districtimprovement.

Introduction


8/72

6

Exploring the Pathway

and lead to increased studentacademic performance. Thepreponderance of evidencefrom these case studies dem-onstrates that districts can anddo make a difference, and thatthere are a number of commonthemes, actions, and strate-gies that reforming districts,as described by McLaughlinand Talbert (2003), do exhibit(see also Rorrer et al., 2008).However, it is one thing to beable to describe the character-istics of an improved schooldistrict, and quite another tobe able to understand howdistricts embark on the pathto rapid and sustainableimprovement.

What does the research say

about how districts initiate,

support, and sustain rapid

improvement?

The research and literature ondistrict improvement,2 includ-ing guidance and working

documents created by stateeducation agencies,3 is remark-ably consistent with respect tothe broad themes and charac-teristics of improving districts.However, this same body ofresearch can be difcult to

apply to real world situationsdue to its imprecise use ofspecic concepts and variables

and the lack of an overarch-ing framework that explainshow the various concepts and2 Please refer to the supplementalreferences for a complete listing of thedocuments that were used to inform thedevelopment of the Frameworkand inour analysis of the research on districtimprovement.3 For instance, Shannon, G.S. & Bylsma,P. (2004). Characteristics of improved schooldistricts: Themes from research. Ofce

of Superintendent of Public Instruction.Olympia, WA. See also the Wisconsin char-acteristics of successful districts, WisconsinDepartment of Public Instruction, www.dpi.state.wi.us/

Rapid District Improvement

variables relate to each other.Stephen Anderson (2003)points out that discussion onthe district role in change iscomplicated by a lack of con-sensus on the language forrepresenting district actionsand policies associated witheducational reforms (p. 7). Thevarious principles, elements,characteristics, strategies,and actions around districtimprovement tend to confuserather than clarify. In general,we know what an improvingdistrict looks like, but we dontknow exactly howto get there.

Recent studies and synthe-sis of the literature on districtimprovement has led to an

emerging clarity around thekey characteristics of, andstrategies used by improvingdistricts (Sykes et al., 2009)and by effective district lead-ers (Waters & Marzano, 2006).

There are recent frameworks,both academic (Rorrer et al.,2008) and action-oriented

(Childress et al., 2006; Connell,2000; Marsh, 2005) that have

started to integrate many of themost promising strategies fordistrict improvement. Clearly,districts (especially those withincreasing numbers of schoolsdesignated as underperforming)need to be able to provide for asystem of aligned curriculum,instruction, and assessments;they need to have data systemsin place to allow administratorsand teachers to use data; and

they should have mechanismsto monitor and focus supporttowards improving instruc-tion. Districts must be willingto reorganize to fully supportimprovement efforts aimedtowards improving instruc-tion. Who would argue againstdistricts having a vision anda theory of change, or thatdistricts should set goals and


9/72


develop plans that describehow they will attain thesegoals. Districts shouldstrivefor instructional coherence,decrease teacher isolation,cultivate shared responsibility,promote collaborative discus-sions and problem solving,and develop multiple profes-sional learning communitiesin schools and across differentstakeholder groups. Yet withso many things for an improv-ing district to address and worktowards, compounded by thelack of clarity among thesestrategies and goals, it is hardto know where to start, or whatthe truly high-leverage strate-

gies might be.

As we reviewed the researchand case studies on districtimprovement, we found thatsome ndings referred to what

are considered to be core func-tions of the district (e.g., tomaintain a productive relation-ship between the school boardand the Superintendent, tohave an aligned curriculum,and to provide for assessments

and data systems). Other nd-ings referred to the beliefs andculture of the entire district,including the propensity ofdistrict leaders to ask schoolsto engage in collective problemsolving. And nally, some of the

research referred to the spe-cic actions and strategies that

an improving district centralofce might take during its

improvement efforts. When we

attempted to use the variousframeworks to explain how dis-tricts went about engaging inrapid improvement, we foundthem to be useful, but insuf-cient. Overall, the research on

district improvement has muchto say about the characteristicsof improving districts and lessabout howdistricts actually

initiate and sustain rapidimprovement.

What do we mean by rapid

district improvement?

The literature on school turn-around efforts calls for schoolsto make dramatic improvementover the course of one to two

years. Districts, and especiallylarger urban districts, areunlikely to be able to dramati-cally improve student perfor-mance among all schools overthe course of a single year. Forthe purposes of this report andthe broader audience, we dene

rapid district improvement assomething more intensive thantraditional improvement efforts

(e.g., efforts that often requireincremental and continuousimprovement), but somethingless than a full takeover of adistrict central ofce (Redding,

2009).

Rapid district improvementmeans that there are:

Dramatic changes in districtstructures, culture, policies,and process within one to

three years of the start of theimprovement effort;

Evidence of signicant

improvement in instructionalpractices and student aca-demic performance withinthree to four years of thestart of the improvementeffort; and

Evidence that changes and

improvements are system-

wide and sustainable.How do districts engage in

rapid district improvement?

Explaining how districts engage

in rapid district improvementrequires more than simplyunderstanding the character-istics of an improving districtor the expected outcomes ofrapid improvement. We foundit useful to consider rapid


10/72

8


district improvement throughtwo interrelated lenses: as animprovement pathwaymarkedwith catalysts, levers, andbenchmarks; and as a set ofimprovement capacitiesthat areactivated and used by rapidlyimproving districts throughouttheir efforts. The specic cata-

lysts and leversthe pathwaymay be somewhat differentfrom one district to another,but the pathway points to thepossibility of a roadmap thatdistricts and states can use to

jumpstart and ultimately guidedistrict improvement efforts.Similarly, the literature and thecase studies show that rapidlyimproving districts cultivate

and use a set of improvementcapacities that are focused onimproving all aspects of thedistrict as a system. Rapidlyimproving districts develop andthen activate their improvementcapacitiesthey activate theirimprovement infrastructure.

The Framework for DistrictCapacity Building and

Improvementthat follows cap-

tures the dual notion of rapiddistrict improvement as: (1) apathway that requires catalysts(e.g., the opportunities, incen-tives, and capacity) to jump-

start improvement efforts and(2) the development; and useof improvement capacities andspecic strategies to develop

and sustain the improvementeffort. The Frameworkadvancesongoing work around district

improvement by clarifying thedistinction between, and con-nections among, the core func-tions of a district, the catalysts(e.g., triggers, events, incen-tives, opportunities, and mini-mal threshold of capacity) thatmust be present if a district isto embark on the path towardsrapid improvement, and thecapacity of a district to leverage

its core functions to focusexclusively on improving allaspects of the district, includ-ing instruction. The Frameworkbuilds directly upon a reviewof the research on districtimprovement and in particu-lar on ve recent studies4 thatcame closest, in our estimationto capturing the full extent ofwhat it means for a districtto engage in a dramatic andsustained improvement effort.

The Frameworkalso incorpo-rates what we learned fromour intensive site visits withtwo districts that have demon-strated rapid, and in the case oKansas City, Kansas, sustainedimprovement.

The Framework: Our Elevator

Talk

Districts that are doing a goodjob meeting the needs of theirstudents have two things goingfor them: rst, their organiza-

tion worksthey pay their billson time, the school board andsuperintendent get along, theysupport teachers, and theyhave a solid curriculum thatis in schools and classrooms.Second, the district organiza-tion as a whole is focused onimproving whatever they needto improve so that their stu-dents succeed. If somethingisnt working, they gure out

how to x it. Districts that are

4 The ve studies used extensively to

inform Framework for District CapacityBuilding and Improvementinclude:

Leithwood, K., et al. (2004). Review ofresearch: How leadership infuences studen

learning.Marsh, J. et al. (2005). The role of districtsin fostering instructional improvement:

Lessons from three urban districts.

McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. (2003).Reforming districts: How districts support

school reform. A research report.Snipes, J., et al. (2002). Foundations forsuccess: Case studies of how urban school

systems improve student achievement.Rorrer, A., Skrla, L, & Scheurich, J.(2008). Districts as institutional actors ineducational reform.


11/72


failing their students are orga-nizations that are not fullling

their basic functions. They arenot focused on improving. Theydont have the capacity to x

what isnt workingand areprobably not even aware thatits not working.

When districts engage in rapidimprovement, there is a cata-lyzing event that awakens thedistrict and opens up a windowof opportunity allowing thedistrict to take strategic actionsthat simultaneously changebeliefs and improve what isntworking.

A Conceptual Framework for

District Capacity Building and

Improvement

A conceptual framework5 is away of understanding a par-ticular phenomenon, in thiscase how districts engage inrapid and sustainable improve-ment, by articulating a set ofvariables and the relationships

among them (Sabatier, 1999).The conceptual framework pre-sented here has three potentialuses: (1) as a diagnostic tool, oras a self-assessment that can

assist a district (or a state edu-cation agency) to better under-stand what a district needs todo to improve; (2) as a guide fordistricts actively engaging indistrict improvement; and (3)

as a tool for researchers study-ing how districts improve as away of testing hypothesis andadvancing research around dis-trict improvement.

5 In comparison to theories, which providea complex and detailed accounting of therelationships among variables, frameworksaccount for some relationships and allowfor the generation of hypothesis but do notaccount for all of the relationships amongvariables.

The Framework

The Framework for District Capacity Building and Improvementhas three interrelated components:

The1. core district functions that a district is responsible forfullling, and which are necessary for a district to be able

to sustain improvement efforts. The core district functionsinclude:

Management and Operations, focused on the basicfunctions that need to be carried out in order to operatethe district, and

Teaching and Learning, which refer to functions that a

district carries out and that are needed for schools andteachers to provide standards-based instruction andsupport students learning.

A set of2. Improvement Capacities, consisting of districtstructures, policies, processes, and programs intentionallydesigned to improve overall organizational capacity and thequality of teacher instruction.

Districts develop their capacity for improvement by:

Reorganizing the District Ofce to Support Improvement

Efforts,

Reorienting the Organization and Shifting Culture andBeliefs,

Supporting Collective Problem Solving, and

Building Leadership and Instructional Capacity.

A3. Rapid Improvement Pathway, depicting how a districtinitiates and sustains improvement efforts, including thosestrategies used to cultivate improvement capacities andimprove core district functions.

Phase 1Catalyzing Conditions for Rapid Improvement

Phase 2Dening and Communicating a Districtwide

Improvement EffortPhase 3Becoming an Improvement-Oriented

Organization

The Frameworkexplicitly inte-grates the research-based

characteristics of improvingdistricts (represented by thecore district functions andimprovement capacities) withthe catalysts and strategies

that districts take to initiateand sustain rapid improvement(the rapid district improve-ment pathway). Our explana-tion of the Frameworkbeginswith a brief description of thecore district functions and the


12/72

0


improvement capacities.6 Wethen describe the rapid districtimprovement pathway, outlin-ing the catalysts needed to spurdistricts to take action and howdistricts use this window ofopportunity to engage in a sys-tem-wide improvement effort.

The heart of the framework iscontained in our descriptionof how a district becomes animprovement-oriented organiza-

tion by cultivating its improve-ment capacities. Once a dis-trict is able to make it over theinitial set of obstacles (e.g.,in phase one and two), howthedistrict goes about building itscapacity becomes critical to itsultimate success.

6 The improvement capacities representspecic capacities of improving districts

the characteristics of a high-performing

districtand depict those strategies thatrapidly improving districts take as theyengage in improvement effortsthe actionsand the how of district improvement.

Management and operational functions include:

An effective and mutually supportive relationship between the School Board

and Superintendent or district leadership (e.g., School Board develops andsets policy, advocates for the districts; Superintendent manages the district,including hiring and scal management).

Ability to develop, communicate, and enforce policies and procedures.

Human resourcesefcient and streamlined processes that include an

explicit connection to supporting Teaching and Learning.

Administration and Financeefcient and streamlined processes for

managing district nances, including explicit connection to supporting

Teaching and Learning.

Operationsefcient upkeep of district buildings and operations (e.g.,

physical plant, food services, custodial, health and student services).

Ability to meet federal and state regulations and compliance requirements.

7The district central ofce is

responsible for the manage-ment and operation of thedistrict and for ensuring that

schools and teachers have thetools and resources needed tosupport student learning.

Management and Operationsconsist of the basic functionsthat districts need to be ableto carry out in order to operatethe district (e.g., administrativepersonnel, scal management,

operations).

7 Much of the literature on districtimprovement is curiously devoid ofinformation about the core functions ofa district. There is either a presumptionthat districts are able to fulll these basic

functions, or these functions are includedas one of the characteristics of improvingdistricts (e.g., districts develop an alignedcurriculum or develop data systems).

Core DistrictFunctions7


13/72


Teaching and Learning functions refer to the responsibilitythat a district has to provide the tools and resources needed tosupport teaching and learning. The absence of any one of thesecapacities greatly diminishes the ability of the district to providehigh quality, appropriate instruction to students.

If a district is decient in too many of these core functions, either

around operations or around teaching and learning, it is anunlikely candidate for rapid improvement. There is a threshold of

capacity8

within these core functions that must be met if a dis-trict is going to initiate a transformational improvement effort,even with considerable outside assistance. However, it is alsolikely that a portion of a districts overall improvement effortswould include work toward improving its core functions.

A central theme of the research on district improvement is thatdistricts that make rapid and dramatic improvement are, to nosurprise, focused intensively on improving all aspects of the dis-trict as a system, from the central ofce to classroom instruction.

In rapidly improving districts, improvement capacities refer todistrict structures, policies, processes, and programsintentionallydesigned to improve overall organizational capacity and the qual-ity of teacher instruction.

8 New Jerseys Quality School Accountability Continuum illustrates how one state has grappledwith this issue and the difcult questions that arise regarding how directive a state should

be in addressing district deciencies.

The district establishes, supports, provides, or has access to:

An aligned curriculum that includes K-12 curriculum frameworks, maps, orguides and sample instructional strategies aligned with state standards and/orgrade level expectations.

Districtwide and school-level formative and summative assessments in lit-eracy, mathematics, and science, providing for aligned assessments within andacross grades.

Data systems for collecting, storing, accessing, and disseminating school andstudent-level data.

Materials , including textbooks and curricular materials, as needed forinstruction.

Human capital , which entails that the district has the capacity to recruit,induct, evaluate, retain, and/or release district and school staff, principals,teachers, aides, coaches, and support staff, including specialized instructionalsupport.

Knowledge and expertise needed to support and train district and school staffon instructional programs, including designated time and opportunity for profes-sional development.

Improvement Capacities


14/72

2


Display 1 provides a side-by-side listing of the characteristics

(e.g., the structures, policies, processes, and programs) that onewould expect to see in a rapidly improving district (column 1) andthe types of actions that a district takes to develop and activateits improvement capacities (column 2).

Characteristics and Actions Taken by Rapidly Improving DistrictsRapidly Improving Districts

have structures, processes, and programs for:

As districts engage in rapid improvement,

they develop their capacity for

improvement by:

Strategically allocating and targeting human

andscalresources

Aligning district systems and structures to

support district and school improvement efforts

Aligning policies to support district and school

improvement efforts

Reorganizing the District Ofce to

Support Improvement Efforts

The district restructures so that all

efforts, functions, policies, and actions

are supporting the improvement effort

Establishing and communicating a district-wideimprovement strategy, including a vision and

specicgoalsforimprovement

Developing and communicating policies,

mandates, and new programs

Establishing and maintaining a focus on equity

Coordinating and monitoring district-wide

improvement strategies

Setting expectations for monitoring and

supporting school improvement efforts

Reorienting the Organization andShifting Culture and Beliefs

Develop an improvement orientation

Cultivate shared responsibility

Display 1. Improvement Capacities


15/72


Characteristics and Actions Taken by Rapidly Improving Districts

Rapidly Improving Districts

have structures, processes, and programs for:

As districts engage in rapid improvement,

they develop their capacity for

improvement by:

Educators (principals, teachers,

administrators) to engage in ongoing (e.g., at

least once a week) problem solving around

issues related to teaching and learning

Incorporating educator-developed strategies

and solutions into school and district

improvement efforts

Supporting and engendering productive

attitudes/dispositions, such as trust,willingnesstoshareinformation,reectionand

self-awareness, and willingness to change

Supporting collective problem solving

through processes and a strategic mix of

strategies

Provide dedicated time and space for

educatorstogureoutlocalsolutions

Allow for and communicate a strategic

balance of district parameters and local

autonomy

Provide educators with the skills neededto engage in ongoing problem solving

Improving instructional capacity in schools and

among district leaders.

Analyzing and using data to identify district and

school areas for improvement

Investigating, identifying, and selecting

improvement strategies (e.g., grants, programs,

new initiatives) and programs that support and

align with the districts improvement efforts

Evaluating the impact of programs and

improvement strategies

Building leadership and instructional

capacity

Focus improvement efforts on improving

instruction

Focus improvement efforts on improving

relations among adults and among adults

and students

Based on our review of the literature on district improvement and the experience9

of the districts proled in this report, we identied a set of conditions, actions, andstrategies that together provide a pathway to rapid improvement. The pathway ispresented as having three phases, although it is clear that as districts engage inan improvement effort, they do not see themselves as moving from one phase tothe next. We present the pathway in phases to make explicit some of the key trig-gers and actions that districts must take, or that need to be supported by stateeducation agencies hoping to promote rapid district improvement. The narrativethat describes each phase and the connections among the phases articulate a setof working hypothesis based on the framework and the case studies.

9 Appendix B provides a one-page summary of the Rapid District Improvement Pathway

The Rapid District Improvement Pathway9


16/72

4


In brief, the rapid improvement pathway includes: (1) a set ofcatalyzing conditions that need to be present in order for adistrict to initiate dramatic improvement efforts; (2) the strategicdecision by the district to use this window of opportunity to initi-ate a system-wide improvement effort and build support for this

effort; and (3) the districts explicit development of its improve-ment capacities, as detailed in Display 2. A detailed explanationof each phase is provided in the following pages.

Phase 1: Catalyzing Conditions for Rapid Improvement

In order for a district to initiate rapid and successful districtimprovement, there must be:

A catalyzing event(or combination of events) that:

Heightens the awareness among school board and districtleaders of critical academic issues and district deciencies;

Increases the urgency among school board and districtleaders to make signicant changes; and

Presents a window of opportunity (e.g., through changesto policies that create conditions for dramatic change,the availability of funding, access to expertise, externalmandates).

The existence of a minimal threshold of capacityamong theschool board, district leaders, or principals

Catalyzing Conditions

for Rapid Improvement

Defining Districtwide

Improvement Efforts

Becoming an

Improvement-Oriented

Learning Organization

Intensive development of

district's improvement

infrastructure (systems,structures, and culture that

support student learning)

Display 2. Rapid District Improvement Pathway - Overview


17/72


Examples of minimal capacity

thresholds include:

Existence of a strong

school board or mayoralsupport with a positiverelationship with a districtleader/Superintendent

Existence of strong

principals and teacherleaders (but limited districtleadership or boardleadership)

Strong school boardwith the courage andability to attract and hirehigh quality leadership,including a Superintendentand other leaders who arechange agents

The current state of affairs

is unacceptable and must

change

The catalyzing conditions10 forrapid improvement involve anevent, or a series of events,that galvanizes support and

10 The catalyzing conditions used in the frame-

workincentives, capacity building strategies,

and opportunityare drawn from Rhim, Hassel, &

Reddings (2008) description of the key elements of

statewide systems of support.

urgency for change throughan awareness of critical de-

ciencies in the districts abilityto educate its students, oftenrepresented by consistently lowand stagnant academic perfor-mance and high rates of stu-dents dropping out of school.We use the term catalyzingevent to differentiate from themere presence of data or otherinformation that shows thatstudents are not achieving asexpected. The public disclo-sure of data and traditionalaccountability mechanisms areinsufcient to trigger dramatic

and rapid improvement. Oncea district is equipped with theawareness and urgency needed

to make change, there needsto be a window of opportunity,such as policies that permitdramatic change or access tofunding and expertise, thatsuggest potential solutions(e.g., a pathway) for the dis-trict to seize and act upon.Additionally, there must be aminimal threshold of capacitywithin the system to initiateactionto not only realize that

the current state of affairs isunacceptable, but to commit toinitiating the actions needed tochange.

Incen vesA catalyzing event that

heightens awareness and

increases urgency

OpportunityA window of opportunity

- e.g., policies, funding or

other mandates

CapacityA minimum threshold of

capacity to ini ate work

Catalyzing Condi ons



18/72

6


Phase2:Deningand

Communicating a District-

wide Improvement Effort

After a sense of urgency,awareness, and a minimalthreshold of capacity has beenestablished:

Core district leaders and

the school board decide ona district-wide improvement

effort that:

Is system-wide, in thatthe effort encompassesthe entire district and allschools in the district;

Is linked to broadly denedneeds, but isnt necessarilya written strategic plan;and

Depicts a vision of thedistrict that is dramaticallydifferent than the statusquo and that will requireadministrators andteachers to do much morethan tinker around theedges. It will requirerapid, intense, anddramatic change.

District leaders create aninitial base of support. Thereis a process by which:

The full extent of theimprovement effort iscommunicated and sharedwith principals, teachers,and key communityleaders.

Administrators, principals,and teachers have a

chance to discuss thefocus, intensity, andthe implications of theimprovement efforts (e.g.,it will involve signicant

and rapid changes).

Here is what we are going to

do. We will do this system-

wide. This is why we are

using this approach, and

this is what we envision our

district looking like as a result

of our actions.

Once a catalyzing event hasoccurred and there exists theurgency and a minimal thresh-old of capacity needed to graspwhat is likely to be a eeting

moment of opportunity, thedistrict must make a strate-gic decision about how it willmove forward. Specically,

district leaders, ideally theSuperintendent and the schoolboard, must identify andcommunicate a district-wide

improvement effort that willrequire the entire district (thecentral ofce, administrator,

principals, teachers, and even

students) to change the waythey do business. It seems logi-cal that the district identify acourse of action that meets itsneeds; however, what is criti-cal at this time-sensitive junc-

ture is that the district clarifya vision for improvement thatwill require rapid, intense, anddramatic change. Also criticalat this point in the pathway is

The District Defines and Communicates its vision and

intent to support a Districtwide Improvement Effort


Improvement Efforts


19/72


that the district communicate the full extent of the improvementeffort, and in particular its focus and intensity, to principals,teachers, and key community leaders.

Phase 3: Becoming an Improvement-Oriented Organization

The District develops its improvement capacities by:

Reorganizing the district ofce so that all efforts, functions,

policies, and actions are directly supporting the improvementeffort

Supporting collective problem solving through processes andstrategies that:

Provide dedicated time and space for educators to gureout local solutions (the how to)

Allow for and communicate a strategic balance of districtmandates/parameters and local autonomy

Provide professional development to educators on how toengage in ongoing problem solving

Reorienting the district culture and beliefs by:

Becoming improvement orientedCultivating shared responsibility

Building leadership and instructional capacity by:

Focusing improvement efforts on improving instruction

Focusing improvement efforts on improving relations amongadults and among adults and students

QuickTime and aNone decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

District Reorganizes to fully

support Improvement Efforts

Reorienng District culture

towards shared responsibility

and accountability

Collecve Problem Solving

Providing dedicated me,

space, and autonomy

Building Leadership and Instruconal Capacity

Focus on improving instrucon - Focus on improving relaonships

Becoming an


Learning Organizaon



infrastructure (systems,

structures, and culture that



20/72

8


Reorganizing the district

ofce. Once a district hascome to terms with the extentof its failure to meet studentsneeds and has decided on asystem-wide improvement

effort, it must then reorganizeitself as needed to implementthe effort and realize its vision.

The reorganization may involvestructural changes, shifts inpolicies, or shifts in the alloca-tion of resources and staff. Thereorganization of the districtofce has multiple implications.

First, it sends a clear messagethroughout the entire systemthat the district is focused onimprovement. Second, it putsin place the structures that

will support the administra-tors and teachers who willdo the real work required toimprove the system. And third,district policies are aligned tosupport improvement efforts,which could involve formalizingexpectations for improvementand providing schools with theneeded exibility to develop

and implement improvementstrategies.

Supporting collective prob-

lem solving. With the struc-tural changes underway andclear expectations having beenset for what schools need to do,the district provides schoolsand teachers with the oppor-tunity, the incentive, andthe skills needed to engagein collective problem solv-ing. Dedicated time and space

is provided for educators toengage in collaborative discus-sions focused on improvingtheir schools and classrooms.In order for the schools (e.g.,the principal and staff of theschool) to make good use of theopportunity to problem solve,district leaders must provideassurances that schools will beable to implement what they

develop, as long as districtexpectations are met. Dening

and communicating a strategicbalance of district expectationsand local autonomy is essen-tial, as district parametersprovide for quality control, andlocal autonomy is needed togenerate high quality solutions.

To support collective problemsolving, training is provided toeducators on how to engage inproductive discussions and tobe able to use data to assessthe effectiveness of all improve-ment efforts.

Reorienting district culture

and beliefs. As educatorsfrom all levels begin to workto improve how they can sup-

port teaching and learning forall students, the district cen-tral ofce considers how it can

reinforce a sense of collectiveresponsibility among all educa-tors. Specic actions, such as

setting explicit, system-wide

expectations for improvementand monitoring schools effortsto meet these expectations,are used to cultivate shared

responsibility. The districtcommunicates a consistentmessage that is focused onimprovement and can best sup-port the implementation andmonitoring of school improve-ment efforts.

Building leadership and

instructional capacity. Thestrategies and actions depictedhere, such as reorganizing thedistrict ofce, having schools

and teachers engage in activeproblem solving, and design-ing processes that model col-lective responsibility, can alltake place over the course ofa single year. Once the foun-dation for rapid improvementis developed, targeted worktowards dramatically improving


21/72


classroom instruction can begin.11 Teachers begin to worktogether to examine data because they have the time, incentive,and skills to do so. Coaches and principals work productivelywith teachers to examine instructional practices because teacherstrust that they can open their doors and actively examine theirown practice without fear. Principals share strategies and ideaswith their colleagues and with district ofcials because there is

collective responsibility for all students. Transformational instruc-tional practices of the scope needed to sustain rapid improvementcan only be achieved if the entire district is focused intensively onimproving learning within and across the system.

The complete Framework for District Capacity Building andImprovementand the Rapid District Improvement Pathwayisdepicted in Figure 1. A full-page version of the Frameworkand amatrix of the Framework elements, variables, and indicators foreach framework element are provided in Appendix C.

Figure 1. Framework for District Capacity Building and Improvement12

The Framework integrates the core district functions and improvement capacities

with the catalyzing conditions and strategies needed to initiate a process of rapid

improvement. The framework includes 8 interdependent variables and depicts the

relationships among the variables.

11 There is a strong emphasis in the literature on district improvement that improv-ing districts focus almost exclusively on instructional improvement (Sykes, et al. 2009;Elmore, 1993). Our framework, and the evidence from the case studies, suggests that

while improving instruction is an important goal, there are prerequisites that must be metif a district is to be able to truly impact the instructional core, and do so rapidly and withsome element of sustainability.12 A more detailed framework that includes the core district functions is included in theAppendix C, which also includes a detailed listing of the indicators corresponding to eachframework element.

QuickTime and aNone decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

IncenvesA catalyzing event that

heightens awareness and

increases urgency

OpportunityA window of opportunity

- e.g., policies, funding or

other mandates

CapacityA minimum threshold of

capacity to iniate work

Catalyzing Condions


District Reorganizes to fully

support Improvement Efforts

The District Defines and Communicates its vision and

intent to support a Districtwide Improvement Effort

Reorienng District culture

towards shared responsibility

and accountability

Collecve Problem Solving

Providing dedicated me,

space, and autonomy

Building Leadership and Instruconal Capacity

Focus on improving instrucon - Focus on improving relaonships


Improvement Efforts

Becoming an


Learning Organizaon



infrastructure (systems,

structures, and culture that


Rapid and Sustained Improvement

Framework for District Capacity Building and Improvement - Rapid District Improvement Pathway


22/72

20


The two districts proled in this

report, Burrton Public Schoolsand Kansas City, Kansas PublicSchools, serve as exemplarycases depicting how urban andrural districts can engage inrapid improvement. Each case

provides specic examples of

what was necessary to initi-ate improvement efforts, thekey strategic decisions madeby the district to initiate itsimprovement efforts, and how

each district built its capacityfor improvement, and thus itsability to impact instruction.

The cases are organized accord-ing to the framework, focusingin particular on the pathway,or story, of each district.13 Weinvite readers to engage witheach districts story, to askquestions, and to consider howthe success of these two dis-

tricts might be replicated.DistrictProlesinBrief

Burrton Public Schools,Burrton, Kansas

275 students

28 certied teachers

Student populations is over95% White

50% free/reduced lunch

In ve years (since 2004), stu-dent academic performanceincreased from 50 to 60% (inreading and math) to 91.7%prociency in reading and

87.5% prociency in math

(Spring 2009).

13 Appendix A provides a description of thecase study methodology and protocols.

Kansas City, Kansas Public

School (KCKPS)19,000 students

Diverse student population(44% African-American, 35%

Hispanic, 25% ELL)

80% free/reduced lunch

The percentage of KCKPSstudents procient in reading

increased from 11% in 1996to 58% in 2008. Similarly, the

percentage of students pro-cient in math increased from3% in 1996 to 56% in 2008.

How did these two districts

make such rapid improvement?

Introduction to Case Studies


23/72


Introduction

Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools (KCKPS) isan urban school district located in WyandotteCounty, directly across the river from KansasCity, Missouri. KCKPS serves over 19,000 eco-nomically and ethnically diverse students. 44%of its students are African American, 35% areHispanic, and 17% Caucasian. Upwards of 80%of the districts students are eligible for free orreduced lunch and 25% are English language

learners. Over the past 12 years, KCKPS hasexperienced some of the most signicant student

achievement gains seen in the country, espe-cially when compared with similarly situateddistricts. The percentage of KCKPS studentsprocient in reading increased from 11% in 1996

to 58% in 2008. Similarly, the percentage of stu-dents procient in math increased from 3% in

1996 to 56% in 2008.

The Context

In 1996-97, Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools

(KCKPS) was not unlike other mid-size urban

districts. The district ofce was organized to

meet its functional demands, focused on cur-riculum and instruction, operations, humanresources, and nance. There was some focus

on school improvement, but such efforts werenot implemented systematically across thedistrict. The district lacked a common curricu-lum and did not have the systems or a commonlanguage needed to consider, analyze, and dis-cuss student achievement and data. In schools,teachers working in isolation with the class-room door shut were considered the norm and

professional. Most teachers did not work inteams, so conversations regarding teaching andlearning were dependent on individual motiva-tion. Instruction was inconsistent, and stu-dents grades were subjective within and acrossschools. Essentially, teachers judged students

performance on what they taught. A number ofschools, and especially the high schools, experi-enced some violence among students, and stu-dent performance across all grades and subjectswas extremely low. Perhaps most telling was

the fact that up until 1996-97, the systemits

teachers, leaders, and the school boarddidnot recognize the signicantly poor performance

of their students, and in essence, the failure ofthe district to provide its students with a qual-ity education. It was as though a cycle of lowexpectations and declining student performancehad created a culture of apathy and lack ofimprovement.

Evidence of Rapid and Dramatic Improvement

Beginning in 1997, KCKPS initiated a sys-tem-wide improvement effort that dramati-

cally altered the way [we] did business. Theimprovement effort involved signicant changes

in district and school organizational structuresdirected towards strengthening relationshipsand improving instruction, a recasting of therelationship between the district and individ-ual schools that provided dened autonomy

to principals, and the creation of a culture ofimprovement and shared accountability thathas become pervasive and embedded in thethinking and actions of educational profes-

sionals across the district. The rst real gainsin student performance were realized in 2001,within four years of initiating the reform. Overa period of 10 years, the percentage of stu-dents procient in math increased by over 50

points (from 3% to 53%) and in reading by over40 points (from 11% to 53%). Graduation ratesrose from 52.5% in 2000 to 78.4% in 2007.Dramatic gains were seen in all schools, includ-ing the districts signature exam school, SumnerAcademy of Arts and Science, which saw stu-dents prociency increase from 60% in the early

years of the reform to over 95% prociency inmath and reading by 2007. Not satised with

its progress, KCKPS, under the leadership of itscurrent Superintendent, Dr. Jill Shackelford,initiated Phase II of its improvement effortsin 2005, which involves an even more intensefocus on improving instruction and aims toprovide a guaranteed and viable curriculumto all students. David A. Smith, the Assistantto the Superintendent, marks this transitionas moving from structures to beliefs. Student

Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools (KCKPS):

A Case Study of a Rapidly Improving District


24/72

22


academic achievement goals for 2010 are set

at 85% for reading and 75% for math. Mostrecently, district leaders met and drafted a guid-ance document that reestablishes its commit-ment to First Things Firstand articulates how itwill build upon these principles moving forward.

What are the strategies that contributed to

KCKPS dramatic improvement?

Adoption and full implementation of a sys-

tem-wide reform effort, First Things First, inall schools, provided the guiding principles andparameters for the districts improvement efforts.It called for the creation of smaller learning com-munities in all schools and placed increasedfocus on improved teacher/teacher and teacher/student relationships.

Consistent and strong school board leader-

ship actively supported district leaders and were

key drivers in communicating the message ofreform to the community. The school board waswilling to take risks by setting policy to supportthe implementation ofFirst Things First, even inthe face of potential public criticism and the lackof instant improvement.

Afundamentalrestructuringofdistrictofce

structures, policies, and use of resourcesfocused exclusively on the implementation ofFirst Things First. In particular, the district, withthe full support of the school board: (1) reas-

signed and placed district staff in schools asinstructional coaches, and (2) created a newposition of Executive Director of Instruction

responsible for overseeing principals andinstructional coaches in each K-8 cluster of

schools and in the high school cluster.

The strategic implementation of regular

cross-school learning communities among

various groups (e.g., principals, instructionalcoaches) and the use of weekly early releaseWednesdays provided dedicated time and space

for teachers and leaders to work collaboratively

towards improving their schools and the district.Initially used to support the implementationofFirst Things First, the learning communitiesdeveloped into ongoing forums for analyzing alltypes of data needed to improve school struc-tures, change policies, and improve instruction.

Providingschoolswithdenedautonomy

granted principals and teachers the autonomyto determine how to best implement First ThingsFirstin their local school and provided principalswith exibility and control over budget, staff-

ing, and schedule. In return, schools were heldaccountable for addressing the parameters ofFirst Things Firstand meeting dened perfor-

mance objectives.

Shifted the focus from teaching to teaching

forlearningthroughtheimplementationof

a benchmarking system, in which middle andhigh school students know exactly what theyneed to demonstrate to pass a course, articu-lated as a set of I Can statements alignedwith standards. Student grades (A, B, C, andIncompleteI) are based solely on attainmentof benchmarks (e.g., teachers do not considerbehavior, attendance, or other factors in assign-ing grades). Students receiving an Incompleteare given additional opportunities to pass thebenchmarks, and turn the I into a grade.

There was this infamous meeting that we all rememberwhere the superintendent showed the district leadership

and the administrators what our data really looked like.

That was pivotal. You think that as educators that we use

data to drive instruction, but back then we didnt really. As

long as we thought our kids were moving, we didnt look a

the data. So at that point when we saw the data, we knew

we had to do something.

Dr. Cynthia Lane

Current Associate Superintendent fo

Instruction and Business

Key Strategies Supporting DramaticImprovement

Catalyzing Conditionsfor Rapid Improvement


25/72


Incentives and Urgency for Change - A

Fortunate Convergence of Events

In 1995, Superintendent Jim Hensley andother leaders in the district, including AssociateSuperintendent Bonnie Lesley, began to askhard questions about student performance. Aninternal report, highlighting the poor perfor-mance of students in reading and mathematics,was generated and shared with the school board.Board members were shocked by the data, andthere was general consensus that action neededto be taken. However, how the district would

proceed was yet to be determined.At the same time that KCKPS was coming togrips with its overall performance, the Ewing

Marion Kauffman Foundation (Kauffman), anational foundation based in Kansas City,Missouri, began to work with Jim Connelland the Institute for Research and Reformin Education (IRRE). At the request of the

Kauffman Foundation, IRRE developed a white

paper describing First Things First, a district-wide approach to school improvement based

on research in youth development. FindingFirst Things Firstto be a promising approach toimproving schools, Kauffman began a search forurban districts that would be willing to adoptFirst Things Firstas a district-wide comprehen-

sive reform effort. In May 1996, Kauffman andIRRE invited the Kansas City, Missouri school

district and KCKPS to a joint meeting to learnmore about First Things Firstand the potentialfor funding to support a district-wide implemen-

tation ofFirst Things First.

KCKPS Board and district leaders wasted littletime in deciding to pursue the opportunitypresented by Kauffman and IRRE. KCKPS sent

its top leaders and a Board member to the May1996 meeting, leading to the decision by theBoard in fall 1996 to formally adopt First ThingsFirstas its district-wide reform model and to

formalize a joint partnership with IRRE and

Kauffman to secure support and funding forthe initiative. The decision to engage with FirstThings Firstwas made in a top-down manner,

with only the Superintendent, a core set of

district leaders, and the Board involved in the

decision. It was also at this point that districtleaders incorporated First Things Firstinto itsDesegregation Exit Plan, providing added impe-

tus and justication for moving forward.

In late fall 1996, district leaders and JimConnell of IRRE held the kick-off roundtable

meeting with over 50 district staff and schoolleaders, including principals. Acknowledgingthe top-down manner in which First Things

Firstwas selected, the purpose of the meetingwas to share the First Things Firstframework

and to create the urgency and buy-in amongschool leaders needed to move forward withthe initiative. Steve Gering, former DeputySuperintendent and one of the architects ofKCKPS improvement efforts, recounted thatwhen principals and district staff were presentedwith hard facts regarding the districts dismalperformance, including a visual display of whatit meant for students, there were audible gaspsamong the room, and people left the auditoriumin tears. After that point, we never had an argu-ment about needing to do something.

Threshold Capacity for Improvement

In the spring of 1997, and only 4 or 5 monthsinto planning to implement First Things First,Superintendent Hensley announced his retire-ment. Coupled with the top-down nature of the

districts decision to adopt First Things First,there were those in the district, including anumber of high-level district leaders, princi-

pals, and the leadership of the local teachersunion, that thought that this too will pass, and

that the district would soon move on to its nextimprovement effort. In the face of these chal-lenges and the potential lapse in leadership, theschool board took actions to ensure that theFirst Things Firstinitiative would not falter. TheBoard made the decision to appoint an interimSuperintendent from within the district, withthe sole task that he continue to support FirstThings First. Essentially, the Board became the

face of the district during the 1997-98 school

year and took on increased leadership responsi-bility during this critical period of time.


26/72

24


The school board carefully considered whether

or not to select the new superintendent fromwithin the ranks of the district or to bring insomeone from the outside. The Board held aseries of community forums to obtain inputregarding the hiring of a new Superintendent,as well as to communicate the importance ofthe First Things Firstinitiative. The results ofthe community forums were inconclusive, asapproximately 50% of the community wantedsomeone external to the district, and the otherhalf preferred that the new superintendenthave experience within the district. After care-

ful deliberation, the Board selected a trusted,respected, and established leader from withinKCKPS. Superintendent Ray Daniels, formerlythe Director of Human Resources, was chosen tolead KCKPS in its efforts to dramatically improvelearning and student performance. Upon hishiring, the rst words spoken by Superintendent

Daniels to his colleagues in the district waswere going to do First Things First, and we aregoing to do it right! Reecting upon this deci-

sion, Board president Gloria Willis said that

hiring Ray Daniels was the best decision thatthey (the Board) ever made.

Incentives

A public and district-driven sharing of data

on student performance led to the initialawarenessan awakeningamong district

leaders regarding the critically poor performanceof its students (and by default, the district) andgenerated a strong sense of urgency within theschool board. After selecting First Things Firstin a top-down fashion, and in order to create

urgency and buy-in among school leaders,

IRRE and district leaders convened a district

Roundtable that is still remembered 10 yearslater as the seminal event that created theurgency and incentive to changeit opened up awindow of opportunity.

Opportunity

The availability of Kauffman FoundationFunding and First Things Firstas a model forreform provided a tangible opportunity forKCKPS, with respect to additional funding and amodel for addressing its needs. The requirementto develop a federally mandated desegregationexit plan prompted the district to begin to lookat student performance data and provided anopportunity for the district to make changes.

Capacity

A threshold of untapped internal capacity, evi-denced by the emergence of strong school boardleadership, strong district leadership, includ-ing the hiring of Superintendent Ray Danielsand the 2004 hiring of Superintendent JillShackelford, and ongoing leadership of cur-rent and past school improvement facilitators,provided the foundation needed to support theimplementation ofFirst Things First.

If you are really serious about it and you are going to

make comprehensive change, you cant just tinker around

the edges. You need to make comprehensive changes

that dramatically impact all the stakeholders in the district,

including parents, community members, teachers, princi-

pals, custodians, food service...everyone. What made this

(First Things First) work has to be the fact that we did this

Pre-K to 12 across the entire district and that everyone

across the district knew the vision, had a common lan-

guage, and knew that we were going to stay with it.Former Superintendent Ray Daniels

Even before Ray Daniels was selected to lead

KCKPS, the Board, district leaders, and IRRE

were hard at work creating an initial base ofsupport and communicating a common messageto all schools and stakeholders. First Things Firsand its Seven Critical Features of school reformprovided the heart of the districts message, set-ting the framework and guiding parameters forall of the work in the district and its schools.

Actions Supporting Rapid Improvement

Defning and Communicating aSystem-wide Improvement Effort


27/72


For Students, schools are organized to:

1. Increase instructional time and providea lower student/adult ratio during coreinstructional periods;

2. Provide continuity of care across theschool day, across the school years, andbetween school and home (e.g., the cre-ation of smaller learning communities anda family advocacy program);

3. Set high, clear, and fair academic andbehavioral standards that clearly dene

what students will know and be able todo; and

4. Provide enriched and diverse opportuni-ties to learn, perform, and be recognized.

For Adults, schools are organized to:

5. Assure collective responsibility forimprovement in student performance;

6. Provide instructional autonomy and sup-port; and

7. Allow for exible allocation of available

resources.

The importance ofFirst Things Firstthe frame-work provided through seven critical featuresand the support provided by IRRE and funded

by the Kauffman Foundationcannot be over-emphasized. The critical features provided,and provide to this day, the foundation upon

which KCKPS has been able to make its impres-sive gains. However, the lessons to be learnedfrom this case stem from how the district wasable to transform itself into a high capacity andhigh functioning organization as needed to fullyimplement First Things First.

One of the rst strategic actions taken by the

Board and Superintendent Daniels was toprovide a clear, consistent, and regular mes-sage that First Things Firstwas a system-wideimprovement effort, that the reform was going

to involve every school, and that engaging in

this work was going to require dramatic shifts inwhat was expected of school staff. District lead-ers made a strategic decision to frame discus-sions and communication in terms of improve-ment, focusing on how can we improve insteadof blaming others. The message ofFirst ThingsFirstwas communicated to the communitythrough a set of stakeholder forums and to eachschool through IRRE facilitated roundtable ses-

sions. The roundtables were designed to sharethe First Things Firstframework and createurgency among school leaders and staff.

First Things First:Seven Critical Features of School

Reform

Actions Supporting Rapid Improvement:

Communicating a System-wide

Improvement Effort

The District adopted First Things Firstas a single comprehensive approach toschool improvement that provided a set ofseven critical features to be implementedin all schools and a framework to guideimplementation.

The District used a set of communication

mechanisms and processes (e.g., schoolroundtables, community forums, school-

based stakeholder committees) to com-municate a clear, consistent, and regularmessage about the districts improvementefforts, in particular that First Things Firstwas to be implemented districtwide, andthat the district was focused on improv-ing all systems and structures.

The District decided to phase in theimprovement efforts, starting with the

Wyandotte cluster as the rst of fourclusters of schools to plan for and imple-ment First Things First.

The District made a few early, but criticalshifts in the organization of the districtofce that served to reinforce the message

and work ofFirst Things First. In particu-lar, the district created a formal positionof Director of School Improvement andassigned School Improvement Facilitatorsto the rst cluster of schools.


28/72

26


Moving Toward Rapid Improvement

A series of events provided the impetus andfoundation for KCKPS to initiate its journey onthe pathway to rapid improvement. A candidanalysis of its data led to an awakening andsense of urgency among the Board and dis-trict leaders. The fortunate, but not altogetheruncommon, availability of foundation fundingand a reform model provided an opportunityand a framework for the district to access anduse. And by tapping existing capacity within theBoard and among district leaders, the district

was able to withstand an initial period of insta-bility. Once the decision was made to engage ina system-wide reform effort, the Board and the

district shared the comprehensive nature of theimprovement effort with multiple stakeholdergroups, setting its course for the coming years.However, the difcult and very real work of

changing structures, beliefs, and instruction hadyet to occur.

The story of KCKPS improvement efforts iscomplex and multifaceted. The story involves thegenerous support and funding provided by theKauffman Foundation, the intensive consulta-tion and expertise provided by Jim Connell andIRRE, the hard work and leadership of district

leaders, Board members, principals, teachersand professional staff, and community sup-port. One can only imagine the day-to-day and

month-to-month negotiations, discussions, anddebates that likely occurred over the courseof the rst 3 to 4 years of the districts efforts,

as the reform moved from the rst cluster,

Wyandotte, to the second, and ultimately thethird and fourth clusters of schools. Multipleindividuals and stakeholdersprincipals, teach-ers, the union, the communityplayed a signi-

cant role during different points in the districtsoverall path to improvement.

It is impossible to tease out the many obstacles

that were overcome and the role that differentindividuals had along the way. Doing so may notshed light on the key lessons and takeaways forsimilar districts striving to engage in rapid andsustainable improvement. Fortunately, the storyof KCKPS success does illustrate a number ofpowerful, and potentially transferable, actionsand strategies that can be used to drive district-

wide reform.

Broadly speaking, KCKPS story is the story ofa district that capitalized on a combination of

urgency and opportunity and used this windowof opportunity to direct all of its energy andstrategic thinking on how to improve itself. FirstThings Firstprovided the guiding framework forimprovement, but it was the district, with ongo-ing and much-needed support from the school

board, that created systems and structures forimplementing First Things First. In doing so,KCKPS created and subsequently transferred aculture of improvement to its schools, principalsteachers, and students. So how did this happen?

KCKPS made a number of strategic decisionsthroughout its improvement effort, such asreorganizing and aligning district ofce struc-

tures and policies, creating formal structuresfor learning and analyzing data, and imple-menting the reform in all schools. However, theone theme that runs consistently throughoutthe actions and course of KCKPS improve-ment efforts is that KCKPS provided district andschool leaders, including teachers and staff,with the skills, time, and responsibility for g-

uring out how to implement the seven critical

features ofFirst Things First. In doing so, KCKPSpromoted active and engaged problem solvingwithin and across schools, rather than inducingpassive (and often resistant) implementers (e.g.,principals and teachers) of policies and strate-gies that are developed and often mandated byofcials or experts outside of the system. By

setting both non-negotiable goals for learning

and instruction, while providing school leader-ship teams with the responsibility and authority

Becoming an Improvement-

Oriented Learning Organization


29/72


for determining how to meet those goals14 and

developing district structures and processes thatpermitted schools to meet this responsibility,KCKPS created an effective system of improve-ment that it continues to leverage to this day.

Key Feature #1: Reorganizing the District Ofce to

Support Improvement Efforts

A central feature of KCKPS improvementefforts is its continual rethinking of how thedistrict central ofce should be structured and

organized to support district-wide improve-

ment efforts. At the onset of its reform efforts,Superintendent Hensley and a core team ofdistrict leaders realized that the district ofce

needed to change ifFirst Things Firstwas tohave any chance of being successful. Analyzingthe organization of the district through the lensof how to best support First Things First, theydecided that having two Executive Directors of

School Operations (each responsible for opera-tions within two clusters of school) and a some-what large Ofce of Curriculum with over 30

staff, most of whom spent little to no time inschools, would be counterproductive. Overall,the district ofce had little direct coordination

and monitoring of school improvement effortsand no formal mechanisms in place to providefor such monitoring.

Between 1997 and 1999, the district made twoorganizational changes that formalized its com-

mitment to district-wide reform. First, the dis-trict established a formal position of Executive

Director of School Improvement, chargedwith supporting and implementing the dis-tricts improvement efforts (which at this timeinvolved implementing First Things Firstin theWyandotte Cluster). Second, the Superintendentand Assistant Superintendent selected and14 FTF Phase II Guiding Document, as quoted from Waters, T., &Marzano, R. J. (2006)

reassigned over 20 district staff, many from the

Ofce of Curriculum, to be housed in targetedschools as designated School ImprovementFacilitators. The establishment of a senior leveldirector of school improvement, replacing one ofthe two directors of school operations, and theshift of district staff to work directly in schools,focused on supporting school improvement,sent a message to the entire school community

principals, teachers, and support staff alikethat the district ofce and leaders were going to

stick with First Things First.

Creating Instructional Executive Directorsof Instruction. As the implementation ofFirstThings Firstprogressed, district leaders contin-ued to think strategically about how the districtwas organized. In 2001, district leaders realizedthat the district structure was no longer fea-sible, due to the fact that First Things Firstwasbeing implemented in four clusters. Buildingupon the original position and role of the rst

Executive Director of School Improvement,

the district gradually increased the number ofExecutive Directors, beginning with two in 2001,

and then moving to four and ultimately veExecutive Directors in 2008, responsible for the

four K-8 Clusters and the High School cluster.

To clarify the role of the Executive Directors and

to emphasize their role in improving instruc-tion in schools, the name was rst changed

from Executive Director of School Improvement

to Executive Director of Instruction and most

recently to Instructional Executive Directors

(IEDs). As KCKPS shifted into Phase II of its

reform and focused more intensively on chang-ing instruction, the IEDs, while still district-level

staff, have taken on increasing responsibil-ity for monitoring school improvement effortsand working directly with schools, typicallythrough their supervision of the principal andInstructional Coach15 in each cluster school.

15 Formerly called School Improvement Facilitators; the districtchanged the facilitators formal title to instructional coaches tomeet a requirement from the state regarding the use of federalprofessional development funds.

Key Features of KCKPSImprovement Effort


30/72

28


Aligning Structures to Support Improvement.

The Instructional Executive Directors emergedas the central means by which the district moni-tors and supports school improvement efforts.

The success of the districts system of supportstems from its innovative use of the IEDs. First,

the IEDs serve as the formal link, or intermedi-

ary, between the district and individual schoolsand are responsible for monitoring schoolimprovement efforts and supervising the prin-cipal and Instructional Coach in each school(within their cluster). Second, the IEDs are

valued and trusted by school staff, which allows

them to dually monitor and support. The inno-vative construction of supervisory roles createsa situation in which principals and instructionalcoaches work together to build school-based

instructional capacity. And as trusted leaders,the IEDs are able to support ongoing learning

within and across schools. Figure 2 shows theworking relationships between the IEDs and

local schools and how the relationships areintended to impact school improvement efforts.

Aligning Policies to Support Improvement. As

the district began to change how it functionedand was organized to support improvement,

the Board and district leaders realized that

changes in policy were necessary for the orga-nizational changes to be fully effective. In addi-tion to including First Things Firstin its ExitDesegregation Plan, the district began to formal-ize the concept of Dened Autonomy (described

in detail in the next section), which involvedproviding schools and principals with increasedexibility over stafng, scheduling, and con-

trol over the budget. Recognizing the likelihoodthat schools may have different schedules andstafng patterns, the district worked with the

teachers union to include a provision in theteachers contract, called contract ex, that

allowed schools to quickly propose changes tostafng and scheduling and have these changes

approved by the union on a school-by-school

basis.16

Reorganizing the district ofce, including align-

ing structures and policies to support itsimprovement effort, was critical to KCKPS early

16 While First Things Firstand the seven critical features were notformally mentioned in the teachers contract, there was an under-standing among district ofcials and union representatives that

the seven critical features and school improvement goals would beincluded in the criteria by which proposed stafng and scheduling

changes would be assessed and approved.

Figure 2. Depiction of Relationship between Instructional Executive Directors and School Leaders


31/72


success in implementing district-wide reform

efforts and remains critical to efforts to sus-tain and build upon its successes. Without thereorganization, there would not have been thesupports needed to develop smaller learningcommunities in every school, to provide schoolleaders with the training and time needed togure out how to implement the seven criti-

cal features, or the instructional supports thatwould allow teachers in small learning com-munities to begin to change their instruction.In the second phase of KCKPS improvementeffort, the district continues to consider how it is

organized to support schools through deliberatemodication of the roles and expectations of the

IEDs and the recent creation of two district-level

Executive Directors for Teaching and Learning.

Key Feature #2: Supporting Collective Problem

Solving

DenedExpectations+LocalAutonomy:The

Foundation for Collective Problem Solving.As First Things Firstwas being rolled out in theWyandotte Cluster, district leaders, with thebacking of the school board, decided that itwould be a mistake to mandate too much of theFirst Things Firstmodel. Instead, they decidedto grant schools a signicant amount of exibil-

ity in deciding how to address the seven criti-cal features. This decision was not an easy oneto make, as it required that the district place asignicant amount of trust in local school lead-

ers and teachers. It also meant that the districtwould have to accept that some schools mightbe unsuccessful in their rst attempt to develop

smaller learning communities, a family advo-

cacy system, or other components ofFirst ThingsFirst. District leaders recounted that it was oftena personal struggle for them to allow schoolsto go down a path that they knew (or thought)wasnt right. But these same district leadersreected that if we had gone in and mandated

what the schools needed to do, we would havelost them right there. In a similar vein, the dis-trict sometimes had to restrain IRRE from push-

ing too much and telling schools what needed tobe done. The early decision to provide schools

with the autonomy and exibility to develop

customized structures and processes was cru-cial in that it created an atmosphere of trust andan emerging culture of improvement. As KCKPShas continued to rene the relationship between

the district central ofce and individual schools,

they have come to refer to this relationship asdened autonomy,17 borrowing from the workby Waters and Marzano (2006) on effectiveschool district leadership practices.

Institutionalizing Collective Problem

Solving. Over the course of its improvement

efforts, KCKPS instituted a number of formalmeeting structures intended to support theimplementation ofFirst Things Firstand promotelearning and problem solving across thedistrict. According to many in the district, thedevelopment of Early Release Wednesdays was

perhaps the most crucial of all of the decisionsmade by the district. The story of how Early

Release Wednesdays came to be, and what it hasbecome, illustrates KCKPS overall approach toimprovement.

Apart from initially adopting First Things First, having the

Wednesday afternoon sessions was perhaps the most

instrumental action that we made and was key to changin

teaching and learning.

Steve Gering, Former Deputy Superintenden

Early in the second year of the reform (1998-

99), a number of principals and teachers beganto voice concerns that they didnt have enoughtime to look at data and gure out how to imple-

ment the seven critical features. Funding fromthe Kauffman Foundation had provided forconsiderable planning time and training during

the initial planning year, but it was clear thatschools needed additional, ongoing time tocontinue to work through issues. District lead-ers and the Board listened to the pleas of prin-cipals and teachers and came to the realization,through lengthy discussions and the gatheringof additional input from principals, that schools

17 Dened autonomy articulates the relationship between the

district and schools, in which the district sets non-negotiable goals

for learning and instruction, while providing school leadershipteams with the responsibility and authority for determining how tomeet those goals (see Waters, T., & Marzano, R. J., 2006).


32/72

30


needed at least two hours of dedicated time,

each week, to work on implementing and tospend time thinking about what improvementneeds to happen.18 When the Board went to thecommunity to secure its support, parents andcommunity members had multiple concerns,not the least of which was what would happento the students each week, during two hours ofunsupervised time. According to Gloria Willis,Board president, the Board spent considerabletime sharing information with the communityand describing why early release was necessary.Ultimately, the Board went to the faith com-

munity and the broader business communityfor support, and they opened their doorsthechurches, re stations, YMCA and YWCAthey

provided after school services. With supportfrom the community, the Board was willing totake the risk and change policy so that everyschool would have a two-hour early release each

Wednesday afternoon.

Early release Wednesdays provide princi-

pals, instructional coaches, and teachers withthe dedicated time and space to look at data

and gure out how to improve their school.Depending on the needs of the school, teach-ers might work in their smaller learning com-munities or as a full faculty, looking at data andasking questions focused on improving teach-ing and learning. During the rst few years, the

district exercised more control over the contentand focus of early release Wednesdays, usingthis time to train principals and teachers ondata use as well as to work through the myriadof i

exploring the pathway to rapid district improvement

Documents