This was the case at our Act Now to Build the Future event on August 17th, when we simply ran out of time for all of our guests to ask questions of our panelists (see here and here for details on the event.)   Our panelists – Dr. Bill Green, Superintendent of Minneapolis Public Schools, and Suzanne Kelly, Interim Superintendent of Saint Paul Public Schools – graciously agreed to answer additional questions to be posted here.

Below are their responses to 8 questions:

1) Large district school superintendents’ job tenure has been relatively short in recent history at anywhere from two to four years depending on your source.  Both of your districts are on the cusp of hiring a new leader to come in and take the reigns in the midst of significant strategic changes.  What have you – and perhaps more importantly, to the extent you’re able to comment, your boards – learned about hiring leadership for your districts over the past ten years, and what do you think you might do differently this time around?

Dr. Bill Green

Dr. Green (BG): The length of a superintendent’s tenure should not determine the longevity of his or her impact on the district. One of the most critical tasks for a superintendent is to assure the continuity of his or her work. In the case of the Minneapolis Public Schools, the creation of the 2007-2012 Strategic Plan, the aggressive movement forward on the execution of that plan and the establishment of a strong new leadership team committed to carrying forth the work mean that we will have continuity and course stability as we move forward under a new superintendent.

Few of the current Board of Education members have experience or extensive experience in hiring a new superintendent. It will be important for them to be able to develop and articulate a selection process that is aligned with the current needs of the district. I hope they will take into particular consideration the qualities this district will need to reach the ambitious goals of the Strategic Plan. In my view, the right candidate will have a background steeped in academics if we are to make substantial gains in closing the achievement gap and graduating every child ready to go to college and ready to become responsible global citizens. The candidate must understand how critical strong relationships with the community are to the success of the district, the students and the city of Minneapolis. The next superintendent must be absolutely committed to carrying on the dramatic work we have embarked on by focusing resources to create and maintain a financially sustainable future. And of course he or she must be able to lead a team of superior leaders. In other words, we need a leader who understands fully the needs of this district, in this city, at this moment in history.

Just as we have actively engaged the community in major decisions, I assume the Board will want to ask the community for their input on this selection. I hope the process will take into consideration all the issues I have raised, with a particular emphasis on the importance of maintaining stability and continuity. Keeping that primary need in mind, I believe it would serve our families, students and employees well to make the selection process as thoughtful and expeditious as possible.

Suzanne Kelly

Suzanne Kelly (SK):  First of all, I think it is fair to say that our Board of Education and current and past leadership in SPPS have made a deliberate effort to ensure that the transition between the former superintendent and myself was a smooth one in terms of documenting projects and benchmarks, and being intentional about having a stable leadership team to keep the school district moving forward in this time of transition.  Very specific steps were taken to ensure that when the next permanent superintendent comes on board, that person will have a solid understanding of the plans, implementation and recent history of district priorities, resulting in a successful transition period.

As to the issue of hiring leadership in a school district, it is important for the Board of Education to have a pulse on the organization, to set the tone for change, and move quickly in its direction for how it will select the next leader.  Most importantly is to show that the hiring process is on track and to communicate the process and progress clearly and broadly.

2) Both of your districts have recently undertaken efforts to increase autonomy and move toward smaller, localized school models.  Some might say that these efforts are at least in part a response to decreasing enrollment and other competitive pressures from educational choices such as charter schools.  How do you see the emergence of charter schools as having impacted your district – good or bad – and do you see your districts’ strategic efforts are responding to these competitive pressures?

BG:  The Minneapolis Public Schools’ embrace of “self-governed schools” is a direct response to the best of our charter competitors. Note that we are still in a statutory policy conundrum: we compete with charters yet are required by statute to pay their excess special education costs and provide greater transportation service. We compete with higher fixed costs (collectively bargained wages scales) and more regulatory requirements (desegregation). We compete in an environment where there are different standards of accountability for student performance.

MPS will support the development of innovative contract and self-governed school programs slated for implementation for the 2010-11 school year that will specifically support students currently attending schools among the lowest-achieving 25 percent in the district. Developing a portfolio of high-achieving, autonomous schools is one strategy put forth in our 2007-2012 Strategic Plan to focus resources and initiate new approaches to student learning. The Office of New Schools will be responsible for cultivating, authorizing and overseeing a portfolio of new self-governed schools within the Minneapolis school district. Self-governed schools work is being aided by the Bridge Committee, a partnership organization involving MPS, the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers and parent and community leaders.

Self-governed schools represent an opportunity to partner with our teachers to put student achievement first in all we do together. They encourage innovative teaching and learning methods to improve student learning and narrow achievement gaps. They are designed to complement existing school models and provide an environment in which students are able to achieve at a faster rate. In Minneapolis, targeted federal and state dollars as well as foundation and private funding sources will be used to support the implementation of self-governed programs proven to drive achievement results. Student achievement is at the core of our work, and self-governed programs that have demonstrated success nationwide can provide us with new tools to reach students who may not have been served by our current school options.

SK: The fact that the number of school-age children in the city has declined has been an enrollment challenge to the majority of schools in St. Paul and Minnesota — those in SPPS, charters and private schools.  There are in-demand schools in each setting that remain strong and have built reputations of success, often having waiting lists for entrance.

I would say that one of the best outcomes from charters, in particular, has been to promote parental choice and to have school districts pay closer attention to how we serve students and families.  In fact, one of our goals this year is to improve the cultural proficiency of all of staff – which is testament to the fact that we are paying closer attention to our constituents now than we may have done prior to competition from charters.

3) The No Child Left Behind performance rates were recently released and published in the newspaper.  How should those results be interpreted by the public and parents? How should community members be tracking progress in the schools?

BG: There are two basic kinds of academic results: achievement of standards and growth. Families and the public can learn the most from looking at both kinds of information.

Families should look first at how their student is doing. This is why when we sent the school results to families we also sent each family their child’s results. We encourage families to look to see if their child is meeting standards and to see how much growth their child is making. We want all students to meet or exceed standards and to have at least one year of growth every year. We want children who are below a standard to make more than a year of growth so that they can catch up.

The public should track progress in the same way. What percent of students are meeting or exceeding standards? What percent of students are making more than a year’s growth in a year’s time? Both pieces of information should be disaggregated to look at different student groups to know if the school is making progress toward closing the achievement gap. MPS uses this information to determine which programs and services are most effective and should be expanded.

Finally, while state assessments are a critical measure of success, they are just one measure. MPS has a Quality Indicators Report for every school which includes other kinds of important information about schools. The forty indicators included in this report give a more comprehensive view of each school and its progress than looking at state assessments alone.

SK: For parents, I would say the best way to track progress is through their child’s experience in his or her school, and whether the school is helping the child improve proficiency.

For the community, I would argue that it should look for gains and growth overall.  Are the schools improving outcomes for students — whether or not they are “making AYP?”  That is a good sign.  I also would suggest that community members need to ask, as we are in SPPS, how are each group of students doing, not just on the whole, but by breaking down the parts?  If a system and a school is paying attention to and improving outcomes across the board that signals to me that a school is working.

4) The Obama administration has offered stimulus funds through the Department of Education.  Are you able to access any of the funds?  What are your strategies for reaching additional funding and intentions for utilizing the funds?

BG: Federal stimulus funding will allow us to pinpoint short-term efforts in specific areas that will benefit students. Stimulus funding is filling in for what would otherwise be a 9 percent cut in state funding. Other stimulus funding includes about $10 million over two years for special education and about $20 million over two years for schools with high poverty that qualify for Title 1 funding.

As a large urban school district, Minneapolis qualifies for substantial federal stimulus funds, but the quest for these funds is highly competitive and will be tightly monitored and regulated. We must access the funds through the State Department of Education. Some of the guidance we have received is conflicting and we need our legislators to help us get clarity from the federal government on the precise guidelines we must follow to qualify for the money. Fortunately, we have clearly outlined our academic priorities in our Strategic Plan, and many of our goals and strategies are aligned with the direction the Obama administration is offering. So we have the groundwork established, we just need to press for more clarity on the guidelines before we can compete successfully for the funds.

SK: I am pleased to report that SPPS has been able to access the first round of ARRA funds thanks to a well-developed plan that aligns with our district improvement goals with our work on Large-Scale System Changes.  A summary of the budget and ARRA uses in SPPS can be found at http://www.spps.org/2009-2010Budget.html.  Very briefly, our ARRA funds are aimed at building capacity and improving professional practices for lasting impact.  The supports are directed to:

• College and Career Readiness,
• Interventions (for Lowest-Performing Students and Schools),
• Teacher Effectiveness, and
• Education Data Systems.

5) While you represent two large urban districts, you are often competing for state funding with rural districts.  What are the challenges of making the case for funding at the state capital?

BG: First, the real competition is with health care as a sector of the state budget. We are losing that competition. Health care spending growth is in the strong double digits biennium to biennium. Education spending growth is stagnant.

Second, all education interests agree that more state resources are necessary where there are concentrations of poverty, ELL and special education. We have won that case with all regional interests because poverty, ELL and SPED have rural and suburban faces too. The proposed “New MN Miracle” embraces these tenets. The only remaining difference is a matter of degree. These funding differentials are sometimes attacked as partisan wedge issues but they have survived the test of time.

SK: I would argue that all school districts in the state are in similar positions given the economic conditions in the state and country.  Last year, the debate was less about competing agendas among school districts and more about how state funds would be allocated across areas such as Health and Human Services and Infrastructure.

One of the challenges upcoming is how the state will determine allocation of desegregation funding to schools districts.

6) Particularly within Minneapolis, can you provide updates about school choice?  What are the current options that are on the table and where are they with the decision-making process?

BG: In order to move forward so that every child excels, we know that the Minneapolis Public Schools must make changes. Changing School Options is a plan that will help to create the long-term financial sustainability that is essential for academic success.

Changing School Options focuses on right-sizing the district in a careful, intentional way. Changes include closing 7 buildings and 2 programs, changing the program location of some schools, redrawing attendance boundaries and overhauling the school choice system to make it simpler and less costly. While is it difficult to predict exactly what families will do, the maximum number of students moving schools based on the plan’s changes is 5,791.

MPS is paying for more space than it needs. The district’s current enrollment of about 33,000 students uses only 77 percent of its available space. The annual cost to operate extra space is between $4 and 5 million. While some schools are full, overall the district has more space than it can afford. Transportation is another area for streamlining. MPS spends $33 million every year on transportation and buses 70 percent of its students to school. Operational costs are consuming resources at the expense of academics.

Still facing a $14 million shortfall for 2010-11, MPS aims to save about $8 million from implementing the changes recommended in the plan. Long-term financial stability is so important because it sets the stage for redoubling district efforts around achievement. Financial instability translates into staff instability. Yearly budget cuts mean students see a revolving door of teachers instead of the stable instruction they need.

Last October, the first potential scenarios emerged, which formed the basis for a variety of options that were shared with the community in more than 40 meetings throughout the spring and early summer. This valuable input resulted in multiple modifications to arrive a workable solution.

While the plan alone won’t raise test scores, it allows the school district to spend resources more efficiently and helps to prevent more severe cuts in academics. Formal transition planning begins this fall and continues throughout the school year, with teams assigned to support schools and families through the transition. All changes would be implemented for the 2010-11 school year.

SK: In SPPS, our examination and analysis of changing our school choice model continues this school year.  Our Board and Administration have this week moved forward to establish a collaborative goal- and outcome-setting process together.  That facilitated process at the leadership level will take place this fall.

7) The referendum results, as Dr. Green, discussed were exceptional given city demographics.  Participation in yesterday’s meeting reinforced the data and significantly illustrated the interest in the state of public education and desire by community members (those without kid) to engage with both St. Paul and Minneapolis Public Schools.  It seems that both community and parent engagement are equally vital to achieving student success. What kind of resources are your districts putting toward this type of engagement?  How do people get recruited to help or even know the opportunity exists?  How can existing ‘after school’ programs connect with the schools to ensure continuity?

BG: We have many strong linkages, both formal and informal, to an enormous span of community organizations and to parents. Of course, parents, guardians and family members are always encouraged to participate and volunteer at the school level. We have formal relationships with arts organizations; community, ethnic and neighborhood based groups; our Faith-based Initiative; Community Partners Online; Connecting Parents to Educational Opportunities and many more. The easiest way to access information about our connections to the community is to visit our Website at www.mpls.k12.mn.us or call the Office of Family Engagement at (612)668-1830. Do we need to expand our outreach? Absolutely, and we welcome ideas on this from individuals and organizations throughout the city.

SK: In SPPS, we are currently in the process of re-aligning our family engagement staff across central administration to create one vision and one unit that supports families at both the school and district level. We have been moving toward providing systemic tools and supports to schools — which is where families feel the most connected — as well as gathering data that informs our work around family supports.  In the last two years, for example, we have:

• Created Learning Standards documents for families to better understand the expectations for our students in tested subject areas (literacy, math, and science) in each grade, and to offer suggestions for how families can support learning at home.
• Collaborated with other jurisdictions to help families understand how to prepare children for school through Blast Off to Kindergarten and Project Early Kindergarten.
• Created the Guide to Helping Your Child Graduate to Something Great for families to better understand the expectations for our students in each grade, for graduation and beyond. The Guide also offers suggestions for how families can keep their child on track along their academic path, especially through transition times.

In addition, understanding that extended learning is a proven way to increase student performance if implemented well, we have sought to add extended-day offerings at school sites.

8 ) What are some of challenges related to governance the relationship with your school board?  What has been a great success for your district in partnership with your school board?

BG: Whenever a governance board elects its members in staggered terms, the blend of new members together with veterans creates tension between what has been approved and is in place and the new “mandates” newly elected board members bring with them.  The development and approval of the 2007 -2012 Strategic Plan and the passage of a $60 million referendum in a tough economy are probably the two most important successes achieved by the Board and administration together with the community. The current Board has recently structured its work to fall into five committees, to focus more clearly on the governance work of: race and equity, financial oversight, policy, curriculum and instruction and audit.

SK: I think one of the best ways to support school districts, as a whole, is to have understanding, respect and agreement between the Board and the Administration on direction and roles.  When the Board and Administration are out of synch, the organization — the students and the staff in particular — suffer the consequences. It is also important for Board members to have that understanding with each other.

Having served in three separate school districts in different cities, I can state that clarity of roles and responsibilities provides a better environment for a conducive working relationship between a Board and Superintendent.

As a result education is often the topic of conversation around our office “water cooler”.  I find the conversations interesting, but often respond with some distance. Given that my little guy is only 18 months old, I assume that the public school system will all be different by the time he is in school so I’ll just worry about it then.  Recently a colleague set me straight, when she said, “School change is slow.  The impact of any changes being made now will be greater on your son or future kids, than my kids who are in 6^th and 9^th grades.”

So, now I am paying attention!

When I invited Dr. Bill Green and Suzanne Kelly, Superintendent and interim Superintendent of Minneapolis Public Schools and Saint Paul Public Schools respectively, to lead a discussion last week entitled, “Act Now to Build the Future” I challenged them to make the case for young professionals to start paying attention to the schools now.  Since most in the room did not have school-aged children, or didn’t have children at all, it was really important to frame the relevance.  Bernadeia Johnson, Deputy Superintendent of Minneapolis Public Schools, also joined the panel.

Participants Christian Zepeda, Kari Anderson and Molly Gillin

Dr. Green, a historian by nature and attorney by training, made the case by educating us on Minnesota’s long legacy of public education for all.  In the 1870’s a law was enacted that desegregated Minnesota schools and guaranteed that all children regardless of race, religion or ethnicity have access to education.  He also shared a tale from the same time period in which Minnesota officials searched for more teachers.  They sent letters to cities along the east coast in attempts to allure teachers to come to Minnesota.  Noting that it was not common practice in the east, those letters specified that interested teachers must be willing to teach students of all races and ethnicities.

The legacy of ensuring education for all was illustrated in the voting booths as recently as 2008.  Residents of Minneapolis approved the Strong Schools, Strong City Referendum which generates approximately $60 million per year for Minneapolis Public Schools.  The referendum and called for a tax increase of approximately $17 per month for the average homeowner in Minneapolis – the largest tax increase for schools to date. What was most striking about the referendum passing is that 71% of voters supported the referendum even though only 20% the city’s residents have children in the district.

Clearly our history illustrates that we are a community dedicated to our youth.  They are our future and their success has a positive correlation with our community’s prosperity.  Regardless of the source of your interest in public school – your concern for your property value, your dependence on the future workforce, or your hopes for the children in your neighborhood – what matters is that we steward the legacy passed down to us and pay attention to our schools.

How do you want to advance the legacy?

Interim Superintendent Suzanne Kelly

Both districts are implementing strategic plans that call for reform.  I encourage you to look over each of the plans.  (Click here for MPS Strategic Plan and SPPS Strategic Plan)

Both districts are experiencing declines in student populations and are struggling to “right size” their districts.  While this is difficult for community members who feel attached to their local school, the leadership firmly stated that by closing buildings they are able to redirect funds from

Superintendent Bill Green and Deputy Superintendent Bernadeia Johonson

bricks and mortar back into the classroom.

Ms. Kelly shared that she is deeply concerned by proficiency test results in her district.  Recent scores show that only white students reached a minimum of 50% proficiency in math and reading in 2009.  She stressed that incremental gains in achievement are not acceptable, they need to accelerate improvement.

St. Paul’s strategies include an emphasis on cultural proficiency in which teachers and non-licensed staff receive training in how their backgrounds affect the way they interact with students.  In addition they are focusing on teacher effectiveness, academic support, placing kids on a post-secondary trajectory starting in elementary school, and extending time spent learning in part through partnerships with nonprofits that can reinforce school curriculum.

Minneapolis is increasing accountability expectations and investing in principals and high performing teachers.  They emphasized the importance of the “instructional core” which is made of the student, teacher and curriculum content.  Minneapolis is excited about their partnerships with Teach for America which will provide the district with 13 teaching fellows.  They have also partnered with the New Teacher Project which is helping address contract reform with the Teacher’s union.

The panel agreed that they are challenged to find time in the day to provide interdisciplinary educational opportunities.  They look to nonprofits and community partners to help bring these activities to the students, and recognize it as a challenge in their curriculum.

Superintendet Green and Rajiv Shah

When asked if they had all the money in the world, what would they do to affect student success they unanimously agreed that they would buy more time.  They excitedly talked about  the idea of being able to extend the school day and the school year.

Additional questions have been submitted to the panelists.  Their responses will be posted shortly.