Improving the Academic Improvement Plan

On January 5, 2015 the RPS School Board approved the Academic Improvement Plan for 2014-2015. In its most simple form, the school administration is tasked with managing (A) people and programs, and (B) facilities and infrastructure. The Academic Improvement Plan just approved covers (A), and later this spring, school administration will present their plan for facilities and infrastructure (B). Thus, between these two documents we will have a complete plan for reform in RPS.

The Academic Improvement Plan

The plan is based upon the National Center for Education Achievement (NCEA) Core Framework. The NCEA was a research wing of ACT, Inc. - the ACT test people - but has been reabsorbed back into the company.   

As seen in the image below, the framework is based on common characteristics found at urban, high-achieving  high-poverty schools. From their research, they developed 5 common themes with 15 core practices to instruct actions at the district, school, and classroom level.

An example of how this model is applied can be found in this 2011 NCEA core practice audit of Winnisquam Regional School District in New Hampshire.

In Richmond, school administration identified key metrics for school accreditation and SOLs to track and determine impact. Action teams, mainly comprised of central administration and school principals, created year-long action plans with district, school, and classroom-level practices, followed by more specific deliverables for each one of the 5 themes. In all, 129 deliverable practices are to be accomplished within the next year.  

Action Team	Deliverables
	Total	District	School	Classroom
Theme 1	21	6	8	7
Theme 2	38	25	9	4
Theme 3	25	13	6	6
Theme 4	19	12	5	2
Theme 5	26	15	5	6

My Analysis

Improvements in the Academic Improvement Plan are needed for RPS to realize their extensive goals (129 deliverables in the next year alone). By simplifying this plan to actions at the district-level for year 1, we can start to lay the all important infrastructure to foster and sustain an environment of successful classrooms. If constructed properly, one could easily draw a line between student activities in the classroom to the role of district administration - a constant illusion when I was teaching.

The Solution

Start with Dr. Bedden’s top 3 priorities (pp.6), which are:

Dr. Bedden’s Top Priorities

1. Improve Teaching and Learning

2. Positive Stakeholder Engagement

3. Establish and Maintain Positive Climate

To me, #3 is a product of #1 and #2. The NCEA 5 Core Framework targets - in an extensive way - #1, teaching and learning. Therefore, I’d add a 6th theme to the Academic Improvement Plan, stakeholder engagement, to address #2.

Action teams should be led by central administration, but would be comprised of a smaller number (6-8 people), from a wider range (e.g. students, teachers, private sector). These teams would be assigned to 6 core theme areas, and would plan and manage the implementation of 2-3 key solutions by the end of next year. Thus reducing 129 deliverables, to a maximum of 18.

NCEA’s Core Themes	Garet’s 6 Themes
1. Curriculum and Academic Goals	Curriculum Alignment
2. Staff Selection, Leadership and Capacity Development	Staff Selection and Development
3. Instructional Tools: Programs and Strategies	Teaching Resources
4. Monitoring Performance and Progress	Assessment
5. Intervention and Adjustment	Remediation or Advancement
[Bedden Priority #2]	Stakeholder Engagement

For example, the assessment team would set a district-level goal to have all test scores processed and returned to teachers within a 48-hour period. This would focus the team’s efforts on the needed procedural and technological efficiencies to accomplish by the end of a year at the district, school, and classroom levels.  

For this upcoming year, practices  - as identified in the Academic Improvement Plan - for schools and classrooms would remain, but would be recommendations instead of deliverables. This would allow for deliverables at these levels to be developed from the pursuit of key district-level goals in year 1.

The emphasis on paring down the number of deliverables is not to dilute the impact of change, but to direct it to where it is most needed - programmatic infrastructure.  

In talking with Jean Rutherford, a researcher at ACT, Inc. who worked to develop the NCEA Core Framework, she said the key to high functioning schools  - with populations similar to Richmond - was “establishing a powerhouse infrastructure that supports teachers, principals, and classrooms, regardless of who is in role.” Her top examples of this framework in action were Wilson High School in Long Beach, CA and the system of Plano, TX.

In the end, we have to establish a top-down philosophy, reinforced with actions, where district-level administration supports the needs of students, teachers and principals - in that order. Dr. Bedden has started to lay this groundwork through his speeches to the community and choices in his administrative team. The recent #BetterwithBedden is representative of a distinct change in perception of RPS from past superintendents.

To build on this momentum - by developing district-wide infrastructure - we must be careful to craft solutions that lessen the burden on students, teachers, and principals. From my experience as a teacher, well meaning district solutions such as: creating a common template for lesson plans, additional SOL district-level tests, or adding professional development time (e.g. PLCs or curriculum alignment) became burden-adding because they were disconnected from actual needs or lacked necessary resources.

To create authentic solutions, we need to engage students, teachers, and community stakeholders in the process to develop a powerhouse programmatic infrastructure. By expanding membership of the 6 theme action teams and centering our efforts in year 1 on a few key district-level changes we can begin to establish and maintain a positive climate of progress.

Education and Economic Development

What if education was Richmond's top economic development priority?

Current Economic Development Practice

The City of Richmond, through the Department of Economic and Community Development (ECD) and Economic Development Authority (EDA), gives money and city resources to businesses (e.g. Redskins Camp, Shockoe Stadium, Boulevard Site) to have them locate within the city. These are priority economic development projects.

Rationale

These businesses become the anchor, or attraction piece, to obtain more middle and upper income residents. These new residents spend dispensable income (sales and restaurant tax), and invest in property (personal property and assessment taxes), which in turn grows the city’s revenue base to better fund services and infrastructure to the poorest citizens and neighborhoods within the city.
Due to the city being unable to annex county land with jobs and middle/upper income households, the city must grow from within through redevelopment and revitalization. This is different from other examples in the south (i.e. Charlottesville, Durham, and Atlanta) that have been able to expand within the adjacent county to provide the revenue base to pay for services.

The Problem

To survive, these new businesses must continue to attract people from outside their local neighborhood, or even city, because the local economic base was not originally what attracted them to site (i.e. location made possible by government subsidy). The rationale that these businesses would be the linchpin for future development is not realized. The heavy up-front cost of public investment is not realized, and the city is left poorer with no other ancillary benefits from this initial investment in a select few.

One example where this concept was implemented and failed locally was with the 6th Street Marketplace. Further reading on this topic can be found in Roland Wilson’s 1989 master’s thesis assessing the failure of the 6th street marketplace.

The Solution = Education as a Top Priority

More middle and upper income residents need to be attracted, retained, or built-up from within (my favorite) the city to balance the income inequalities within our neighborhoods and grow revenues to fund city services. But, instead of government subsidies for one-time large projects, what if we made education the top priority?

Let’s say we made education our top priority within the budget and direct Richmond’s ECD and other city departments, along with the EDA, to make targeted investments and apply human resources to making Richmond Public Schools (RPS) a world class education system.

More money and emphasis on schools sends the message to middle and upper income families that they should stay within the city. Also, over time children of lower income families will become better trained and more educated, thus providing the opportunity to break family cycles of poverty. Check out this NY Times interactive map of economic mobility to see where these cycles are being broken today.

US Equality of Opportunity Project, Harvard University, 2014

Businesses see median household incomes rise and the development of a local economical base, thus making it fiscally viable for them to locate in the city. A sustainable system of consumer and businesses is created by the market, not artificially supplanted by government subsidies. An example of site selection factors can be seen in the City of Richmond’s VEDP profile.

But, let’s say this doesn't work as advertised and it takes longer for a business environment to be fostered. Are we just left with a vacant failed 6th Street Marketplace? No, because the ancillary benefits would be tremendous!

In the economic pursuit of investing in education, you now are FINALLY providing a world class education system to the numerous working poor and improvised families and children in the city. This would begin to account for past wrongs and degradation, while lowering future government costs to provide services. The fiscal benefits of education investment are detailed in countless academic studies, and are the main impetus behind why my former employer, the City of Hampton, funds “Healthy Family Partnership”. Programs like this are based upon real savings to city services (health care, incarceration, and other government services).



Could we really make this happen?

Yes, of course. Like most things in life, if you really want something to happen, you will find the time, money, or resources to make it happen. Think about that girl or guy who you pined for, and they finally said yes to a date. Did you worry about how much it could cost? I bet you would beg, borrow, or steal to pay for that date. What about scheduling conflicts? Are you really going to let your job or other priorities get in the way? Heck no.

Our City Council and Mayor should support the School Board and Superintendent in going after failing education in the way we would after a first date… minus the stealing part.

They are there to work out the details. We, the citizens, are here to advocate. So let your voice be heard and contact your city councilperson. Together we can advocate for more intelligent spending of public dollars and serve those in the most need, our current RPS students.