Upload
virgil-webb
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Administrative Organization CommitteeDistrict benchmarking: Case studies
January 12, 2012
2012-01-12 Admin Org_Pre Read-vF.pptx 2
Draft – For discussion only
Cop
yrig
ht ©
201
2 by
The
Bos
ton
Con
sulti
ng G
roup
, Inc
. All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Transition Planning Commission
Agenda for 1/12 meeting of Administrative Organization committee
Approval of minutes from 1/5 meeting
Update on work from past week
Review of new material• District case studies
Discussion
Alignment on agenda for 1/19
2012-01-12 Admin Org_Pre Read-vF.pptx 3
Draft – For discussion only
Cop
yrig
ht ©
201
2 by
The
Bos
ton
Con
sulti
ng G
roup
, Inc
. All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Transition Planning Commission
Reminder: Aspirations for administrative structureRevised based on discussion at 1/5 meeting
Premium is placed on equal, accessible, high-quality education for all students
Places management decision-making close to students, so unique needs are met
Keeps schools connected to local community
Enables effective use of innovation in delivery systems
Enables district to make district-wide changes when needed
Efficient use of resources; keeps spending on management to minimum needed to be effective
Enables district to attract top talent
Connects schools that serve the same children over time (feeder patterns) enabling PK-12 coordination and accountability
Enables senior management to make informed decisions on principal evaluation and gives them flexibility in compensating, promoting and exiting principals
Connects schools with similar challenges, enabling both peer learning and specialized support from the district
Allows for some degree of choice
Ensures governance structure is responsive to county and creates a sense of community ownership
2012-01-12 Admin Org_Pre Read-vF.pptx 4
Draft – For discussion only
Cop
yrig
ht ©
201
2 by
The
Bos
ton
Con
sulti
ng G
roup
, Inc
. All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Transition Planning Commission
Case study introduction
We conducted interviews with three district leaders this week:• Deputy Superintendent of Montgomery County Public Schools (MD)• Chief Academic Officer of Prince George's County Public Schools (MD)• Former Chief Area Officer of Chicago Public Schools
We focused our interviews on better understanding:• The rationale for the current district structure• The processes used to complement the district structure• The degree to which the current design addresses the TPC aspirations• The impact of their design, and any refinements they are considering for the future
2012-01-12 Admin Org_Pre Read-vF.pptx 5
Draft – For discussion only
Cop
yrig
ht ©
201
2 by
The
Bos
ton
Con
sulti
ng G
roup
, Inc
. All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Transition Planning Commission
Case study context
Montgomery County Public
Schools
Prince George's County Public
SchoolsChicago Public
Schools
Merged Shelby County Schools
weighted avg.
Total students 114,064 126,671 409,279 149,047
Number of schools 200 205 675 258
Total teachers 11,673 ~9,000 21,320 10,342
Total non-teaching staff
10,556 ~9,000 19,358 7,831
Per-student $ $15,181 $13,612 $11,536 $10,629
Size – land area 496 485 227 755
% Free/Red. Lunch 31% 53% 86% 70%
% Special Needs 12% 11% 13% 16%
Graduation rate 89% 79% 74% 78%
Sources: Maryland State Report Card; Illinois State Report Card; Tennessee State Department of Education; BCG analysis
2012-01-12 Admin Org_Pre Read-vF.pptx 6
Draft – For discussion only
Cop
yrig
ht ©
201
2 by
The
Bos
ton
Con
sulti
ng G
roup
, Inc
. All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Transition Planning Commission
Organizational structure of case study districts
Montgomery CountyMontgomery County Prince George's CountyPrince George's County ChicagoChicago
Superintendent
Community Superintendent
Deputy Super. of Schools
Chief School Performance Officer
Principal
x6
Superintendent
Associate Superintendent
Deputy Superintendent
Chief Academic Officer
Principal
x3
Instructional Director x12
Chief Executive Officer
Chief of Schools
Chief Education Officer
Chief of Leadership Development
Principal
x19
Chief ofInstruction
2012-01-12 Admin Org_Pre Read-vF.pptx 7
Draft – For discussion only
Cop
yrig
ht ©
201
2 by
The
Bos
ton
Con
sulti
ng G
roup
, Inc
. All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Transition Planning Commission
Montgomery County Public Schools (I)Key elements of administrative organization design
Governance
Organization
• Organized by geography into 6 communities, led by Community Superintendents• Entire feeder pattern grouped in same community • Community Superintendents paired with performance directors with complementary
backgrounds (e.g. Community Superintendents with elementary background paired with directors with high school background)
• District governed by an elected school board• 7 elected board members + 1 student member• 5 members elected by their district, 2 at-large
2012-01-12 Admin Org_Pre Read-vF.pptx 8
Draft – For discussion only
Cop
yrig
ht ©
201
2 by
The
Bos
ton
Con
sulti
ng G
roup
, Inc
. All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Transition Planning Commission
Montgomery County Public Schools (II)Key elements of administrative organization design
Man
ag
emen
t
Recent changes
Division of roles
Connecting similar schools
Community engagement
• Community Superintendents hire and support principals, monitor performance data, ensure consistency
• Central office provides most support functions, sets high over-arching expectations
• Professional Learning Communities bring together all high school and middle school principals every month, elementary principals every other month
• High-poverty schools supported by Title 1 staff, have smaller class size, extended year
• Geographic organization of zones enables connection to local communities• Administrative department dedicated to family and community partnership
• ~20 years ago, transitioned away from a model with strong Area Superintendents – (included curriculum support, operational support at the community level), largely for financial reasons
• Currently looking to bring back some support roles to the community level (but not to the extent of the previous Area model)
2012-01-12 Admin Org_Pre Read-vF.pptx 9
Draft – For discussion only
Cop
yrig
ht ©
201
2 by
The
Bos
ton
Con
sulti
ng G
roup
, Inc
. All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Transition Planning Commission
Prince George's County Public Schools (I)Key elements of administrative organization design
Governance
Organization
• Organized first by grade level, with turnaround schools managed separately• 3 Associate Superintendents manage 12 instructional directors who support 10-15
principals each• 1 Assoc. Superintendent focuses on high school for entire district, other 2 split
elementary by geography
• District governed by an elected school board• 9 board members elected from districts, plus one student member• Many forms over time– in past few years state disbanded school board, then
reinstated it on an appointed basis, and recently reinstated elected board
2012-01-12 Admin Org_Pre Read-vF.pptx 10
Draft – For discussion only
Cop
yrig
ht ©
201
2 by
The
Bos
ton
Con
sulti
ng G
roup
, Inc
. All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Transition Planning Commission
Prince George's County Public Schools (II)Key elements of administrative organization design
Man
ag
emen
t
Changes over time
Division of roles
Connecting similar schools
Community engagement
• Attempt to mix low and high performing schools within clusters, to encourage sharing of best practices, have "models of excellence" within each cluster
• 3 Associate Superintendents also lead district-wide reform initiatives (e.g. college-going culture)
• Principal evaluations include community engagement component• Many small municipalities in the county; very typical for Principals to be connected
directly with local elected officials
• This year, transferred 50% of budget ownership to principals• Encourage principals to innovate, adjusting staffing and scheduling to meet goals• Due to budget reasons, last year cut 1,300 administrative positions, mostly in central
supports
• In past year, reorganized to address budget concerns and desire for more ownership at school level
• Currently evaluating if blanket autonomy is right, or if autonomy should be earned• Also working now to build 2-3 specialized academies within each high school to
encourage more students to attend their neighborhood high schools. Have legacy optional schools but current focus is specialized programs within traditional schools
2012-01-12 Admin Org_Pre Read-vF.pptx 11
Draft – For discussion only
Cop
yrig
ht ©
201
2 by
The
Bos
ton
Con
sulti
ng G
roup
, Inc
. All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Transition Planning Commission
Chicago Public Schools (I)Key elements of administrative organization design
Governance
Organization
• 19 networks (14 elementary and 5 high school) organized geographically, led by chiefs of schools
• Networks roll up into 5 collaboratives that include all schools within a geographic area from elementary to high school
• District governed by mayoral control since 1989• 7 members on the school board, all appointed by the mayor• Additionally, local school councils (LSCs) are elected bodies that support each
school, and are responsible for selecting principals, approving school budget
2012-01-12 Admin Org_Pre Read-vF.pptx 12
Draft – For discussion only
Cop
yrig
ht ©
201
2 by
The
Bos
ton
Con
sulti
ng G
roup
, Inc
. All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Transition Planning Commission
Chicago Public Schools (II)Key elements of administrative organization design
Man
ag
emen
t
Changes over time
Division of roles
Connecting schools
Community engagement
• Given recent reorganization, professional learning communities have not yet formed; intention is to do so
• Cabinet-level community engagement position, supported by one director in each of the 19 networks
• Local school councils offer formal structure for community engagement
• The 19 chiefs of schools are responsible for managing and supporting principals• The 5 collaboratives host support centers providing facilities, operations, and
technology services
• July 2011 reorganization: reduced formerly heavy middle layer, with chief area officers acting as superintendents of their own sub-districts, and supported by a large staff dedicated to that area
– Had resulted in inconsistencies across the district and redundancies of work• Centralized key support functions, and decentralized professional development,
some curriculum