Portfolio School Districts Project Better Schools Through Better Politics: The Human Side of Portfolio School District Reform A Working Paper Series by Sam Sperry, with Kirsten Vital and Cristina Sepe Introduction by Paul Hill March 2012 425 Pontius, Suite 410 Seattle, Washington 98109 T: 206.685.2214 F: 206.221.7402 www.crpe.org THE PORTFOLIO SCHOOL DISTRICTS PROJECT Portfolio management is an emerging strategy in public education, one in which school districts manage a portfolio of diverse schools that are provided in many ways—including through traditional district operation, charter operators, and nonprofit organizations—and hold all schools accountable for performance. In 2009, the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) launched the Portfolio School Districts Project to help state and local leaders understand practical issues related to the design and implementation of the portfolio school district strategy, and to support portfolio school districts in learning from one another. A Different Vision of the School District Traditional School Districts Portfolio School Districts Schools as permanent investments Schools as contingent on performance “One best system” of schooling Differentiated system of schools Government as sole provider Diverse groups provide schools Analysis of Portfolio District Practices To understand how these broad ideas play out in practice, CRPE is studying an array of districts (Chicago, Denver, Hartford, New Orleans, New York City, and Washington, D.C.) that are implementing the portfolio strategy. The on-going analysis looks at what these districts are doing on important fronts, including how they attract and retain talent, support school improvement, manage accountability, and re-balance their portfolios by opening and closing schools when needed. The work compares different localities’ approaches and adapts relevant lessons from outside sources such as foreign education systems and business. The Portfolio Network Connecting Portfolio Districts Participating districts include Austin, Baltimore, In addition to fieldwork and reports from the study districts, CRPE Boston, Central Falls, Chicago, Cincinnati, has built a network of districts interested in portfolio management. Cleveland, Denver, Detroit, District of Columbia, This network brings together local leaders—mayors, foundation Hartford, Indianapolis, Jefferson Parish, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Nashville, officers, superintendents, and school board members—who have New Haven, New Orleans, North Forest, New York adopted or are considering a portfolio management strategy. Like the City, Oakland, Philadelphia, Rochester, Spring strategy itself, the network is a problem-solving effort. Each city is Branch, Tennessee Achievement School District. constantly encountering barriers and developing solutions that others can learn from. CRPE sponsors the following tools for supporting portfolio districts: • Semi-annual meetings of the portfolio network. The majority of participants are involved in day-to-day portfolio implementation, resulting in content-rich and highly informative meetings. • Portfolio online community. Outside of the network meetings, members collaborate and participate in online discussions and share resources around emerging issues. • Portfolio web-based handbook of problems and promising solutions. Built around the needs of member districts, the handbook is a growing resource available to anyone interested in school and district performance management. It includes special analyses done by CRPE and synthesized best practice materials from member districts. (Under development) The Portfolio School Districts Project is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, and the Joyce Foundation. TO VIEW REPORts FROM THIS PROJECT, VISIT WWW.CRPE.ORG. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION By Paul Hill ......................................................................................1 BETTER SCHOOLS THROUGH BETTER POLITICS: THE HUMAN SIDE OF PORTFOLIO SCHOOL DISTRICT REFORM By Sam Sperry ...................................................................................6 PORTFOLIO REFORM IN NEW YORK CITY: ‘TOUGH LOVE’ BRINGS BETTER SCHOOLS By Sam Sperry .................................................................................26 PORTFOLIO REFORM IN CHICAGO: THERE’S TROUBLE IN RIVER CITY By Sam Sperry .................................................................................52 PORTFOLIO REFORM IN DENVER: A MILE HIGH AND CLIMBING By Sam Sperry .................................................................................75 THE TRIAGE MODEL: WHAT IS IT AND WHY WAS IT CONSTRUCTED? By Kirsten Vital ..............................................................................115 SCHOOL CLOSURE PROCESSES IN PORTFOLIO DISTRICTS By Cristina Sepe..............................................................................122 ABOUT THE AUTHORS The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE), the University of Washington Bothell, or project funders. CRPE Working Papers have not been subject to the Center’s Quality Assurance Process. INTRODUCTION By Paul Hill rom our work examining the efforts to close schools over the past 10 years, in cities of all sizes, two glaring facts stand out: Most city and district leaders are surprised at how difficult it is to close schools. And many of these leaders make Fmistakes that others before them have learned to avoid. Yes, each city is different. Yet each city’s school closure experience shares problems common to the others. At CRPE, we have identified these common problems and distilled these experiences to ferret out solutions to this difficult challenge confronting reform efforts to better our public schools. Our purpose is neither to encourage nor to discourage school closures. Our purpose, rather, is to spotlight when and how school closures might work to the benefit of children. Moreover, we learned it is possible to anticipate political and practical problems, and to determine how and when schools must be closed. These decisions can be made so that the most positive balance of benefits to costs is achieved. We also learned this work is not for the faint of heart. School closures bring controversy, in some cases severe and enduring conflict. Nor are school closures a short-term fix. Rather, closures are a long-term venture requiring constant attention and patience, and most of all a commitment to success. This working paper series examines the politics of portfolio school district reform, with a primary focus on the issues surrounding high school closures. We take an in-depth look at how school closure policies have played out in four urban districts—New York City, Chicago, Denver, and Oakland—and offer a political assessment of what worked or failed and why. The political analyses, case studies, cross-district comparisons, and analysis frameworks may help education leaders anticipate and better address the challenges of closing schools within their own communities. Why School Closure Is an Issue Leaders in many cities face tough choices about closing existing schools. Some are driven by economics and enrollment declines, some by the need to create new options for children previously stuck in unproductive schools, and some by both. 1 BETTER SCHOOLS THROUGH BETTER POLITICS: Detroit and Philadelphia are keeping open between 30 percent and 50 percent more buildings than they actually need to house all their students; they are also running big operating deficits. Closing some schools, along with numerous other cost-reducing moves, is inevitable. These and many other cities also face serious performance problems, typified by groups of schools in which students are unlikely to make a year’s gain each year in school, and fall so far behind that they have little chance of attaining a high school diploma. Cities are trying many things to improve the chances of children served by these schools, including completely rebuilding some schools’ staffs and instructional programs, and turning over full operation of the schools to new groups, including providers of charter schools. Some cities, recognizing that not all the children in a given neighborhood need exactly the same schools, are closing zoned schools and replacing them with schools of choice. This can weaken the connection between family and neighborhood, and lead to reduced funding for less popular schools. Any of these actions—whether complete abandonment of an existing building and all the programs in it, reassignment of a building to a new group of educators, or replacement of a zoned school with a school of choice—can be characterized as a school closing. Even if a building never goes empty and students are not forced to go elsewhere, a change in staffing and program amounts to a closure. Virtually all major urban school districts now practice school closure, broadly defined. Some, like New York City, Oakland, New Orleans, Rochester, Denver, and Chicago, regard school closure and reopening with new staff and instructional models as a core part of their strategy to improve student outcomes. The Difficulties of Closure School closing is a classic problem of termination: Many people might benefit ultimately, but some people feel loss immediately. Many of the possible benefits—for example, a slight rise in the school district’s overall graduation rate—are also widespread, and will emerge over a relatively