administrative organization committee district benchmarking: case studies january 12, 2012

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



Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

2 by

The

Bos

ton

Con

sulti

ng G

roup

, Inc

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.


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



Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

2 by

The

Bos

ton

Con

sulti

ng G

roup

, Inc

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.


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



Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

2 by

The

Bos

ton

Con

sulti

ng G

roup

, Inc

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.


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



Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

2 by

The

Bos

ton

Con

sulti

ng G

roup

, Inc

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.


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



Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

2 by

The

Bos

ton

Con

sulti

ng G

roup

, Inc

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.


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



Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

2 by

The

Bos

ton

Con

sulti

ng G

roup

, Inc

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.


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)



Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

2 by

The

Bos

ton

Con

sulti

ng G

roup

, Inc

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.


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



Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

2 by

The

Bos

ton

Con

sulti

ng G

roup

, Inc

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.


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


• 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



Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

2 by

The

Bos

ton

Con

sulti

ng G

roup

, Inc

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.


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



Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

2 by

The

Bos

ton

Con

sulti

ng G

roup

, Inc

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.


Chicago Public Schools (II)Key elements of administrative organization design

Man

ag

emen

t

Changes over time

Division of roles

Connecting schools


• 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

administrative organization committee district benchmarking: case studies january 12, 2012

Documents