Search

The portfolio strategy is a change strategy for public education in a district or metropolitan area. It is founded on the idea of re-missioning government agencies from rigid bureaucratic entities that mostly manage compliance requirements and interest group politics to a new role: overseeing performance and a diverse range of school choices (portfolio) from which families can choose. Since 2013, the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) has published annual "dashboards" of districts' progress on portfolio strategy implementation. CRPE recently analyzed the data on trends across all portfolio districts, breaking it down by the strategy's seven key components. This report shows quite starkly where cities are moving ahead rapidly and where they are getting bogged down for technical or political reasons. Key findings include: (1) While a handful of districts are at an "advanced" level of portfolio strategy implementation, too many are moving very slowly or are stalled; (2) Some districts are implementing portfolio strategy in a piecemeal fashion that is unlikely to produce significant results for students; (3) A group of districts not well known for portfolio implementation has been making a lot of progress lately; (4) Districts tend to get "stuck" on or avoid the parts of portfolio systems that require a fundamental restructuring of the central office or changes to the union contract; and (5) It will take leadership at the state and local level to overcome barriers, and sustained progress is likely to require state action. "The Seven Components of the Portfolio Strategy and Their Corresponding Elements" is appended.

Charter schools--public schools of choice that are operated autonomously, outside the direct control of local school districts--have become more prevalent over the past two decades. There is no consensus about whether, on average, charter schools are doing better or worse than conventional public schools at promoting the achievement of their students. Nonetheless, one research finding is clear: Effects vary widely among different charter schools. Many educators, policymakers, and funders are interested in ways to identify and replicate successful charter schools and help other public schools adopt effective charter school practices. Charter-school management organizations (CMOs), which establish and operate multiple charter schools, represent one prominent attempt to bring high performance to scale. The National Study of CMO Effectiveness aims to fill the gap in systematic evidence about CMOs, providing the first rigorous nationwide examination of CMOs' effects on students' achievement and attainment. The study includes an examination of the relationships between the practices of individual CMOs and their effects on student achievement, with the aim of providing useful guidance to the field. This updated edition of the report provides key findings from the study on CMO practices, impacts, and the relationships between them. A forthcoming report will explore promising practices in greater depth. This study uses multiple data sources to describe CMOs, assess their impacts on students, and identify practices associated with positive impacts in order to address the following research questions: (1) How quickly are CMOs growing? Which students and areas do they serve and what resources do they use? What are the practices and structures of CMOs? What state policies and other factors appear to influence the location and growth of CMOs?; (2) What are the impacts of CMOs on student outcomes and to what extent do these impacts vary across CMOs?; and (3) Which CMO practices and structures are positively associated with impacts? To examine eligible CMOs and address the research questions, the authors conducted a survey of CMO central office staff, surveys of CMO principals and principals in nearby conventional public schools, a survey of CMO teachers, and site visits to 10 CMOs and 20 schools. In addition, they collected and analyzed school records with data on student characteristics and outcomes (including test scores), and they examined CMO financial records and business plans. Findings include: (1) Comprehensive behavior policies are positively associated with student impacts; (2) Intensive teacher coaching is positively associated with student impacts; (3) CMOs using TFA and teaching fellow teachers have higher impacts, but other staffing decisions are not associated with impacts; (4) CMOs categorized as "data-driven" and "time on task" have larger impacts, on average, than two other categories of CMOs; and (5) Tightness of CMO management is weakly associated with impacts. As is often the case in studies of this kind, some of the interesting findings raise other important questions. The following questions are discussed in this report: (1) To what extent do CMOs produce positive effects on longer term student outcomes?; (2) What explains why some CMOs have negative impacts on test scores?; (3) Which promising strategies should CMOs implement and how should they implement them?; (5) To what extent do CMOs add value compared to independent charter schools?; (6) Are new CMOs using the same strategies and producing the same impacts as more established CMOs?; and (7) What other factors might contribute to CMO impacts? Appended are: (1) Construction and Analysis of Measures Used in Chapter III; (2) Experimental Impacts; (3) Validation of Impact Estimation Approach; (4) Methodology for Estimating CMO and School- Level Impacts on Achievement in Middle- Schools; (5) Baseline Equivalence; (6) Method for Dealing with Grade Repetition; (7) Methodology and Results for CMO Impacts on High School Achievement and Attainment; (8) Impacts on Middle School Test Scores by CMO, Year, and Subject; (9) Comparing CMO and Independent Charter Impacts; (10) Subgroup Impacts; (11) Multiple Comparison Adjustments for Impact Analyses; (12) Methods for Correlating Impacts and CMO Characteristics; and (13) Correlational Analysis Results. Individual chapters contain footnotes. (Contains 56 tables and 49 figures.) [This document was commissioned by NewSchools Venture Fund and written with assistance from Michael Barna, Emily Caffery, Hanley Chiang, John Deke, Melissa Dugger, Emma Ernst, Alena Davidoff-Gore, Eric Grau, Thomas Decker, Mason DeCamillis, Philip Gleason, Amanda Hakanson, Jane Nelson, Antoniya Owens, Julie Redline, Davin Reed, Chris Rodger, Margaret Sullivan, Christina Tuttle, Justin Vigeant, Tiffany Waits, and Clare Wolfendale. For an earlier edition of this report, "The National Study of Charter Management Organization (CMO) Effectiveness. Charter-School Management Organizations: Diverse Strategies and Diverse Student Impacts," see ED526951.]

This paper asserts that instead of assuming that the future of learning has to take place in buildings we happen to have now, districts can let innovations in instruction and learning drive how they provide, design, and use school buildings. With this goal in mind, the paper looks at five trends in education and what they imply about the kinds of buildings and spaces districts will need for tomorrow's schools. The five trends are: (1) pressure on schools to perform for all students, not just those who learn best in traditional settings; (2) demands for the personalization of learning, so that every child has a chance to learn and families have choices; (3) new technologies that will change how teachers teach and students learn; (4) periodic shortages of teachers (and school leaders) linked to swings in the economy; and (5) shifts in student population and residency patterns that will affect not only the demand for schools, but also the demands on schools. This paper has three parts. Part I outlines the five trends and what they might mean for schools; Part II offers six criteria, based on the trends, that can be used to guide district decisions about facilities; Part III, in an effort to further clarify these points, describes two districts that are using innovative approaches to get ahead of the curve when it comes to school facilities. The paper ends with a brief conclusion. (Contains 27 references.) (EV)

This paper helps community partners envision a system of community schools and understand the changes needed to make it a reality. Information in the paper is adapted from a study by the Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago and the Center for Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington. The study examined efforts to decentralize school systems in six major cities nationwide. Part 1 of this paper describes the basis for recent education reforms aimed at decentralizing authority and strengthening school and community connections. It also explains the contexts that shape community-linked school systems. Part 2 presents important features shared by various models for increasing school-level autonomy and school-community linkages. It describes the early experiences of six cities that adopted decentralized school systems. Part 3 shares lessons learned about the scope, depth, and characteristics of school reforms that build school-level responsibility for education. It also presents strategies for connecting schools with parents and communities and describes conflicts that can surface during efforts to create community schools. Part 4 explores challenges and implications for moving from an understanding of community schools to action. Part 5 identifies sources of more information. Contains 11 references. (SM)

This paper examines how to encourage widespread adoption of comprehensive school-reform models--adoption outside the schools and districts that took part in the development process. It refers to such models as "design-based" schools. The paper defines what is meant by a school design and describes receptive school and district environments that are likely to encourage adoption of promising designs. It also reviews the incentives governing the behavior of local stakeholders and considers the possibility that key local actors might be unwilling to cooperate with comprehensive school reform, inclined, in fact, to undermine it. It calls for performance pressures to encourage the adoption of design-based schools and suggests the establishment of state-level incentives to encourage widespread implementation. These incentives are appropriate for all design-based models, whether those proposed by NAS-supported organizations or others. (Contains 33 references.) (DFR)

Integral to school restructuring is the need to create time for school staff to participate in developing a vision, setting goals, formulating plans, training, and exchanging experiences. The use of time is both the object of and the chief impediment to change. The study surveyed educational literature, and business management journals, supplementing these with interviews and data from other Rand studies. "A Timely Problem," the first of four sections, documents the substantial demands for time associated with restructuring. "The Role of Time in Achieving Change" examines how change requires: (1) removing some existing demands on time; (2) adequate investments of time and resources during implementation; and (3) sustained commitment. Successful implementation relies on scheduling time with appropriate lengths, frequency, and availability to key participants. "Time-Creation Devices" outlines six major approaches, including promoting time outside the classroom, refocusing existing commitments, rescheduling, prolonging the work year, and enhancing the efficiency of time use. "Promoting Time for Reform" makes specific policy recommendations for broad application throughout the educational system. (TEJ)

Angiosperms, http://name.umdl.umich.edu/IC-HERB00IC-X-1441250%5DMICH-V-1441250, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/i/image/api/thumb/herb00ic/1441250/MICH-V-1441250/!250,250, The University of Michigan Library provides access to these materials for educational and research purposes. Some materials may be protected by copyright. If you decide to use any of these materials, you are responsible for making your own legal assessment and securing any necessary permission. If you have questions about the collection, please contact the Herbarium professional staff: herb-dlps-help@umich.edu. If you have concerns about the inclusion of an item in this collection, please contact Library Information Technology: libraryit-info@umich.edu., https://www.lib.umich.edu/about-us/policies/copyright-policy

Angiosperms, http://name.umdl.umich.edu/IC-HERB00IC-X-1441250%5DMICH-V-1441250, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/i/image/api/thumb/herb00ic/1441250/MICH-V-1441250/!250,250, The University of Michigan Library provides access to these materials for educational and research purposes. Some materials may be protected by copyright. If you decide to use any of these materials, you are responsible for making your own legal assessment and securing any necessary permission. If you have questions about the collection, please contact the Herbarium professional staff: herb-dlps-help@umich.edu. If you have concerns about the inclusion of an item in this collection, please contact Library Information Technology: libraryit-info@umich.edu., https://www.lib.umich.edu/about-us/policies/copyright-policy