Minneapolis Public Schools Strategic Planning Update

1
Minneapolis Public SchoolsStrategic Planning
Update
CONFIDENTIAL
Board of Education meeting
October 2, 2007
This report is solely for the use of client
personnel. No part of it may be circulated,
quoted, or reproduced for distribution outside
the client organization without prior written
approval from McKinsey Company. This material
was used by McKinsey Company during an oral
presentation it is not a complete record of the
discussion.
2
WE ARE STARTING TO DEVELOP THE OPTIONS
Current activity
May
June-July
August-October
November
3
MPS NEEDS TO CONCENTRATE IN THREE AREAS
Focus of today's discussion
Todays discussion student achievement . . .
Transforming achievement for all kids
1
2
Transforming relationships between district,
schools, parents, and communities
3
Transforming how MPS spends its money
4
KEY THEMES

• Robust data hard to come by in many areas
  anecdotes and themes more common
• No silver bullet exists

• Therefore, multiple strategies and innovation
  will be necessary

5
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER WHILE DISCUSSING POTENTIAL
STRATEGIES
DRAFT
1
Which strategies/combination of strategies would
be most effective in driving student achievement?

• Todays objective
• Begin discussing school reform strategies for
  improving student achievement

Within what timeframe can significant change be
expected from potential strategies?
2
3
Which potential strategies would maximize MPS
resources (money and people)?
4
How feasible is each potential strategy e.g. is
it within the control of MPS?
6
TODAY, WELL BE DISCUSSING MULTIPLE SCHOOL REFORM
STRATEGIES
Possible strategy

• Accountability/performance management
• Autonomy
• Instructional quality
• Instructional time
• Class size
• Desegregation/integration
• Different approach for underperforming schools
  (internal)
• Curriculum standardization
• Early grade focus

Managerial

• Different approach for underperforming schools
  (external)
• Small schools
• Self-governed schools
• Charter schools
• Outsourcing
• Alternative programs, e.g. early college models

Structural
7
STRATEGIES MANAGERIAL
DRAFT
Description
Rationale
Examples
Impact

• Clear, high, and measurable goals clearly linked
  to desired outcomes
• Consequences for poor performance

• Clarifies expectations
• Gives basis for action

• New York
• Sacramento
• Houston
• Charlotte

• Key element of successful reform efforts (CGCS)

Account-ability/ per-formance management
Autonomy

• Each school is truly individually managed
• Shared services can be purchased centrally
• Funding follows students to buildings

• Encourages principal/staff involvement and
  feeling of ownership
• Autonomy allows for clear accountability

• Edmonton, Canada

• TBD

8
STRATEGIES MANAGERIAL (CONTINUED)
DRAFT
Description
Rationale
Examples
Impact
Instructional quality

• Improve instruction
• ndividualized OJT, prof. dev.
• Fair and accurate perf. mgt.
• Robust staff pipeline
• Principal instructional role

• Instructional quality can overcome other factors
• Strong principals needed to support teachers and
  set high expectations

• Boston
• New York
• Chicago

• Boston students meeting standards
• 26 in 1998 to 78 in 2006 in Math
• 42 in 1998 to 85 in 2006 in English

Instructional time

• Longer and/or more days for underperforming
  students

• Larger blocks of time for reading and math (while
  retaining time for other subjects/ activities)

• Many charter operators (e.g., Uncommon schools,
  Achievement First)

• Key element of successful charter operators

Class size

• Small classes

• More individualized instruction
• Better student/ teacher relationships
• Better classroom behavior

• Many e.g.,
• California
• Tennessee
• Wisconsin

• Limited except in early grades
• Effects completely dominated by teacher quality
• No research on effects of extra large classes

9
STRATEGIES MANAGERIAL (CONTINUED)
DRAFT
Description
Rationale
Examples
Impact

• Achieve racial balance of student population
• 30-70 Caucasian
• 30-70 African American

• Drivers unclear, potentially due to network
  effects
• Diversity creates more well-rounded students

• Louisville
• Seattle
• Socio-economic desegregation
• Cambridge, MA
• LaCrosse, WI
• Wake Co., N.C.

• Studies consistently show positive yet limited
  impact
• At most 1-3 month improvement of achievement

Desegreg-ation/ integration
Different approach for under-performing schools
(internal)

• Target subset of lowest performing schools
• Special strategies
• Resources
• Organizational structure

• Additional resources and innovation needed to
  quickly improve most struggling schools

• Miami-Dade
• New York
• Chicago

• Early results
• Chancellors District in NYC improved achievement
  and narrowed achievement gap (18 percentage point
  improvement in reading vs. 14 point improvement
  District-wide)

Research primarily focuses on African
American/Caucasian desegregation
10
STRATEGIES MANAGERIAL (CONTINUED)
DRAFT
Description
Rationale
Examples
Impact
Curriculum standardi-zation

• Limited number of curricula district-wide

• Results-based curriculum choice
• Consistency for mobile students
• More focused pro-fessional develop-ment and
  sharing
• Transparency of student progress

• Sacramento
• Houston
• Charlotte
• Chicago

• Key element of successful reform efforts (CGCS)

Early grade focus

• Increase investment and resources in
• Pre-K, or
• Early grades (K-2)

• Students who fall behind early unlikely to catch
  up

• Chicago

• Pre-K Statistically significant improvement in
  student achievement when programs are high
  quality, robust
• Early Grades TBD

11
STRATEGIES STRUCTURAL
DRAFT
Description
Rationale
Examples
Impact
Small schools

• Schools designed to be smaller than average,
  i.e., approx. lt400 for elementary and lt600 for
  high school

• Smaller environment generates more personal
  attention, better behavior and sense of belonging
  for students, and greater ownership by staff

• Many examples
• Withrow University, Cincinnati

• Can be meaningful but only when combined with
  other factors

Self-governed schools

• Charter or District-run schools led by school
  staff, either by teachers or teachers and a
  principal. May be co-op form of ownership

• Greater ownership for student success
• Faster decision-making
• More accountability
• Teacher / administrator conflict can be mitigated

• MN New Country School (part of Ed Visions
  Cooperative with 11 other schools)
• 10 in Milwaukee, WI
• Boston Pilot Schools

• TBD

12
STRATEGIES STRUCTURAL (CONTINUED)
DRAFT
Description
Rationale
Examples
Impact
Charter schools

• Public schools operated outside of traditional
  system

• Independence from District rules provides ability
  to innovate

• KIPP
• Uncommon Schools

• High variability of charter school results
• Multiple charter operators are achieving
  significant gains with low income, students or
  color

• Unclear
• Achievement gains in line with state improvement
  (Philadelphia)

Outsourcing

• For-profit management company operates some/all
  schools

• Clarifies accountability
• Adds leadership capacity

• Philadelphia (large-scale)
• Others (small-scale)

Alternative programs

• For example, early colleges
• Provide students with a college-level curriculum
• Students can earn two years of college credit or
  an Associates degree

• Increase graduation rates/underserved students
  achieving post secondary degrees through
• Personalized learning
• Academic rigor for all students
• Common focus and close personal relationships

• Antioch University Seattle
• Portland Commu-nity Colleges Gateway to College
• Rochester City School District
• University System of Georgia

• TBD

13
MAJOR REFORM EFFORTS UNDERWAY ARE USING
MULTIPLE STRATEGIES
DRAFT
New York
Phila-delphia
KIPP/other charters
Potential strategies
Boston
Chicago
Miami
Denver
Dayton
Managerial strategies
Instructional quality

• Make data available for day-to-day use

?
?
?
?
?
?
?

• Focus on poorly perfor-ming schools (internal)

?
?
?
Pilot schools

• Class size

?
?
?
Structural strategies

• Focus on poorly perfor-ming schools (external)

?
?
?

• Alternative models (e.g., SGS, small schools,
  etc.)

?
?
?
?
?
?

• Outsourcing / charters

Source Review of reform efforts team analysis
14
DRAMATIC RESULTS IN BOSTON AND AMONG SELECTED
CHARTER OPERATORS DEMONSTRATE SIGNIFICANT
IMPROVEMENT IS POSSIBLE
85
DRAFT
KIPP (charter operator) results
Boston reform results

• KIPP student demographic profile
• 97 students of color
• 84 of students in poverty
• KIPP focuses on
• Principal leadership
• Talented, committed teaching faculty of
  continuous learners
• Accountability and data-driven instruction
• Character and behavior

• Boston student demographic profile
• 77 students of color
• 73 of students in poverty
• Major Boston reform levers
• Professional development of teachers
• Principals as instructional leader
• Principal development and selection (75 turnover)

Average test score growth over 3 years in KIPP
schools
Change in test results Boston (1998-2006) Percent
Start 5th
National percentile ranking
1998
End 7th
2006
Math
Reading
Math
Reading
Based on national norm-based tests, 50 is
national average Source District and State web
sites Interviews literature review, KIPP 2006
annual report card
15
APPENDIX
16
ACCOUNTABILITY
DRAFT
Source Council of Great City Schools Case
Studies of How Urban School Systems Improve
Student Achievement
17
AUTONOMY
DRAFT
Source Toward Success at Scale by Tom Vander
Ark education l evolving North Central Regional
Educational Laboratory
18
INSTRUCTIONAL QUALITY
DRAFT
Source Interviews with Boston Public Schools
Personnel Massachusetts Department of Education
website Broad Foundation 2006 Broad Prize
Miami-Dade Public Schools KIPP 2006 Annual Report
19
INSTRUCTIONAL TIME
DRAFT
20
CLASS SIZE REDUCTION
DRAFT
Source McKinsey Challenges and Opportunities
Improving the Worlds School Systems Project
STAR Summary Report Education Week Transcript
of 2/21/2007 discussion on class size
21
DESEGREGATION / INTEGRATION
DRAFT
Source National Academy of Education
Race-Conscious Policies for Assigning Students to
Schools Social Science Research and the Supreme
Court Cases Myron Orfield and Nicholas Wallace
Expanding Education Opportunity Through School
and Housing Choice
22
DIFFERENT INTERNAL APPROACH FOR LOWEST
PERFORMING SCHOOLS
DRAFT
Source Council of Great City Schools Case
Studies of How Urban School Systems Improve
Student Achievement Broad Foundation 2006 Broad
Prize Miami-Dade Public Schools Public Education
Leadership Project at Harvard University,
Managing the Chicago Public Schools Education
Week, 5/10/2005
23
CURRICULUM STANDARDIZATION
DRAFT
Source Council of Great City Schools Case
Studies of How Urban School Systems Improve
Student Achievement
24
PLACEHOLDER EARLY GRADE FOCUS
DRAFT
Source TBD
25
SMALL SCHOOLS
DRAFT
Source Smaller, Saner, Safer Schools
Center for School Change literature review
26
SELF-GOVERNED SCHOOLS
DRAFT
Source Teachers in Professional Practice
Education l Evolving, January 2005 Ed Visions
27
DIFFERENT APPROACH FOR UNDERPERFORMING SCHOOLS
(EXTERNAL)
DRAFT
Source Education Week 2/12/2007 The Rand
Corporation State Takeover, School
Restructuring, Private Management, and Student
Achievement in Philadelphia, Center for Education
Reform Policy Alert 1/30/2007
28
CHARTER SCHOOLS
DRAFT
Description
Rationale

• Public schools run outside of the traditional
  district oversight framework and funded by state
  education funds
• A variety of providers including charters with
  just one site as well as operators of charter
  networks (e.g., KIPP)

• Providing independence from District rules and
  regulations allows schools to try more innovative
  approaches

Examples and impact

• Results are mixed with few studies able to purely
  isolated the performance of charter and
  non-charter schools
• Analyses complicated by selection effects related
  to students who enroll in charters
• NYC study of students who were lotteried-in vs.
  students who were lotteried-out show small gains
  for charter school students
• Charters attended by Minneapolis students show as
  wide of a range of academic achievement as MPS
  does

Source Education Week Charter School
Achievement, What We Know transcript 8/15/2007
Team Analysis
29
ALTERNATIVE MODELS E.G. EARLY COLLEGE
DRAFT
Source Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Early College High School Initiative
30
CLASS SIZE REDUCTION IS NOT A BIG LEVER FOR
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
9
Study review
Impact is rare Few studies show a positive
impact and those that do are K-2
Class reduction Studies
103
Impact is limited The highest estimates of class
size reduction on student achievement suggested
that a reduction from 23 to 15 in the early
grades would lead to an improvement in
performance equivalent to 0.2 of a standard
deviation
Degree of impact is outweighed by other levers
Every single one of the studies showed that
within the range of class sizes typical in OECD
countries, variations in teacher quality
completely dominate any effect of reduced class
size. Other countries prefer to invest in better
teachers in bigger classes.
Positive impact
No significant or negative impact
Class size reduction analyses focus on
reducing from regular size (e.g., 28-32) to small
(e.g., 15) and do not comment on the benefit/cost
of moving from large (e.g., 38-42) to regular
(e.g., 28-32) Source McKinsey review of
class-size studies