I
n this chapter we look at the delivery system in Massachusetts – the set of system actors (people and organizations) and the relationships between them, through which improvements in the education of young people will be implemented. We start at the level of individual schools, then work back to the level of the state. In turn, we look at clusters or networks of schools that enable teachers to work together and learn from each other, followed by the role of districts and how it might need to change to support and challenge these partnerships of schools. Finally we examine the role of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE).Our starting point, as outlined in Chapter 1 above, is that the main challenge ahead of Massachusetts, as a high-per- forming system, is not to mandate adequacy, but to unleash greatness. This requires a significant reduction in the regulation emanating from the state and districts, and the simultaneous introduction of greater autonomy at school level so that principals and faculty can take responsibility for achieving the desired educational outcomes. This auton- omy should be within a framework of transparency and
accountability, which enables parents and taxpayers to see the outcomes being delivered, and of collaboration between schools to drive improvement. We recognize there are some schools and some districts where performance is unac- ceptably low. The state must therefore always maintain the capacity to intervene and, if necessary, to mandate change, but the principle should be intervention in inverse propor- tion to success – districts and schools that are successful should be given greater freedom to lead the next phase of their own improvement.
Unleashing greatness also involves creating and promoting a culture of innovation, in which the creativity of educa- tors and the remarkable possibilities of modern technology flourish. Looking ahead 20 years, it is impossible to imagine that the dramatic transformation needed could be planned and implemented from the top down. It is much more likely that a transformation might emerge from within the system from the bottom up, if the right context were created and the right demand from citizens expressed. Those who lead the state should establish this context and continuously refine and develop it over time.
The other key feature of the current delivery system is the very large number of districts Massachusetts has com- pared to some other states. For example, Massachusetts and Maryland both serve approximately one million K-12 children. Massachusetts has 351 districts, many of them small districts. Maryland has only 24 districts. A conse- quence of Massachusetts structure is there are great differ- ences between the challenges faced by large urban districts and those faced by smaller and suburban districts, many of whom are facing greater financial pressures. A one-size- fits-all theory of change, that doesn’t take account of these differences, will not produce the required transformation. Greater differentiation is needed in the approach to districts, and a key principle should be to encourage greater diversity in the education delivery models for schools and districts.
Increasing freedoms for all schools and
developing a greater diversity of school
models
Evidence from other countries suggests that schools which have the freedom and flexibility to make key decisions about staffing, curriculum and budgets, alongside clear account- ability for outcomes, are in the best position to decide how to meet the needs and aspirations of their students on a daily basis. As the OECD says about the lessons for the US from PISA 2012:
“While the US has devolved responsibilities to districts, the schools themselves often have less discretion in decision making than is the case in many other OECD countries. So the question for the US is not just how many charter schools it establishes but how to build the capacity for all schools to exercise responsible autonomy, as happens in most successful systems.1”
We strongly agree with this, and believe the strategic goal for Massachusetts should be to develop a range of school models, all of which have greater autonomy. Massachusetts has already established greater freedom and flexibility for some schools in combination with stronger accountability for improvement. The 2010 Achievement Gap Act estab- lished additional freedoms for schools designated Level 4 under a Turnaround plan. These schools are allowed to override core elements of collective bargaining agreements including making changes to their curriculum, budgets and staffing, expand the school day/year and increase teacher planning time.2 In return, schools are required to
set clear goals for improvement and can access support
from proven turnaround providers. The Act also created new Innovation Schools, which were also given similar freedoms over curriculum, staffing, budget, school calen- dar and professional development.3
Importantly, the evaluation of the first two years of the Turnaround work provides clear evidence that the Turnaround schools which made the most progress “were more likely to have actively used staffing flexibilities to ensure they had the teachers in place with the capac- ity, willingness and skill to move forward. They had also adopted deliberate systems to improve instruction (such as intensive coaching for teachers or principal and peer classroom observations) and used a greater proportion of their additional resources on teacher-specific professional development.”4 This shows that when used well, and in
combination with the additional resources available, the freedoms granted to Turnaround schools have led to power- ful learning gains.
Currently proposed legislation will extend Turnaround flexibilities to a proportion of Level 3 schools. But why stop there? Why not give these flexibilities immediately to all Level 3 schools? In fact, why not extend them to all schools in the state? It is perverse that the most successful schools in the state, which might be expected to be best able to innovate using such freedoms and flexibilities, are currently prevented from doing so. Put bluntly, this is shackling great- ness rather than unleashing it!
We recommend that Massachusetts go further than the currently proposed legislation and immediately give all schools the same flexibilities available to Turnaround and Innovation schools. Boston has just proposed doing this for all of its schools. Indeed all districts are already free to give these freedoms to all schools but many have chosen not to do so yet. In part this is because of the constraints of local collective bargaining agreements, which is why we argue in Chapter 4 for a new grand bargain between the state and teacher unions and a simpler and thinner statewide teacher union contract. We would hope that many districts will in future willingly give these freedoms and flexibilities to all schools, and this should be incentivized as part of the district redesign competition described below. However, where schools want these freedoms and flexibilities, and the district does not grant them, the state should have the power to intervene and grant any school the same freedoms currently provided to Level 4 schools.
Charter Schools have been the other major pioneers of increased school freedoms and flexibilities in Massachusetts. Overall, the evidence on their impact in Massachusetts is positive. The most recent Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) study of Charter School performance in Massachusetts5 showed that, overall, students in Charters
had significantly higher growth than students in compa- rable district schools. Charters have also been more suc- cessful for students in poverty, and in closing gaps for black and Hispanic students in math (though less so in reading). However, the evidence also shows that much of this over- all success is attributable to Charter Schools in Boston,
suggesting that charters elsewhere in the state have much to learn from them.
The Charter sector raised another issue during our consul- tations; namely that they have not yet taken on the tough- est challenges in the state. One of the Charter Schools we met with shared data which showed the absence of Charter Schools to serve students in the absolute lowest income communities in Massachusetts. Of course, this may in part be due to restrictions imposed by the Charter cap. It is encouraging that the Charter community saw this as their challenge – to make a contribution to solving the state’s most intractable problem, namely raising performance in the most challenging schools. We were also impressed by the partnerships that many of these providers have formed with schools in Turnaround districts. This is strong evidence of their commitment to system-wide improvement.
The 2010 Act lifted the cap on Charter Schools in commu- nities with the biggest achievement gaps, for proven Charter providers. We recommend a further lifting of the Charter