delivery bootcamp delivery primer

DELIVERY BOOTCAMPDelivery Primer


Session Objectives

Our goal is for participants to: Learn the history of Delivery and of EDI Be introduced to the Delivery Framework Learn about the Access 2 Success Network and EDI’s

involvement Learn California State University has employed Delivery in

their system


The CSU Story

Today’s Agenda

The Access 2 Success Network

Overview of EDI


EDI was created to help bring the delivery methodology to implementation of education reform in the US

From the remarks of Tony Blair after winning his second election in June 2001

Prime Minister Blair issued a call for change in June 2001…

PMDU responsibilities

Monitor and report on the delivery of the Prime Minister’s top priorities

Identify key barriers that prevent improvements and actions needed to strengthen implementation

Strengthen departmental capacity to deliver through better planning and sharing knowledge about best practice

…He founded the Prime Minster’s Delivery Unit (PMDU) in 2001 to help the British government implement his agenda…

…and within four years, the government was on track to hit over 80% of its high-priority targets

Dec 03 Jul 04 Dec 04

“…a mandate for reform…and an instruction to

deliver”

Delivery is based on the methodology the PMDU innovated in doing this work

Percent of targets on track

4762

83


A Delivery Story: Leaves on the Line

The Problem of Autumn: Grinding out improved rail

reliability


Rail punctuality varies seasonally and reached an all-time low after the Hatfield crash in October 2000

National actual PPM (period data)

PPM

55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%95%

Mar 97Mar 98 Mar 99 Mar 00 Mar 01 Mar 02 Mar 03 Mar 040%

Hatfield crash


Rail varies seasonally but punctuality reached a post Hatfield peak that year

National Public Performance Measure (PPM) – actual data against Moving Annual Average (MAA)

National actual PPM (period data)National moving annual average

PPM

55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%95%

Mar 97Mar 98 Mar 99 Mar 00 Mar 01 Mar 02 Mar 03 Mar 040%

Post Hatfield peak

Hatfield crash


Rail punctuality varies seasonally and reach a post Hatfield peak – for autumn - that year

Source: Department of Transport

National Public Performance Measure (PPM) – actual data against Moving Annual Average (MAA)

National actual PPM (period data)National moving annual average

Mar 97Mar 98 Mar 99 Mar 00 Mar 01 Mar 02 Mar 03 Mar 04

PPM

55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%95%

0%

Post Hatfield peak

Hatfield crash

Autumn performance almost at pre-Hatfield levels


Rail reliability: The messages are clear

1.Establish a shared goal Demanding and realistic Align key players around the goal

2.Manage performance Don’t just connect the data, use it Monthly reviews with each train operating

company

3.It’s all in the detail Whistles and watches Joint Control Centres

4.Autumn shouldn’t be a surprise The weather is a variable Preparation should be constant


EDI serves state systems of public education and higher education across the United States

Current EDI Partner Systems K-12Higher EducationBoth

Our mission is to partner with K-12 and higher education systems with ambitious reform agendas and invest in their leaders' capacity to deliver results. By employing all or parts of a proven approach, known as delivery, we help state leaders maintain the necessary focus to plan and drive reform.


In addition to states, EDI partners with a number of organizations and on discrete projects

▪The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)– Implementing Common Core

Support (ICCS)– Network for Transforming Educator

Preparation (NTEP)– Cross-State Learning Collaborative

(CSLC)– Deputies support– Strategic planning

▪Complete College America (CCA)

Current EDI organizational partners and projects

▪Kentucky Personal Growth and Effectiveness System (KY PGES)

▪EL Haynes Charter School▪Investing in Innovation Fund (i3)▪Reform Support Network (RSN)

– Communications– Sustainability– Turnaround– Standards

▪Race to the Top – District (RTTTD)▪Helmsley Foundation


The delivery approach produces results by focusing leaders on four fundamental questions

“delivery” (n.) is a systematic process through which system leaders can drive progress and deliver results.

It will enable a system to answer the following questions rigorously:

1 What is our system trying to do?

2 How are we planning to do it?

3 At any given moment, how will we know whether we are on track?

4 If not, what are we going to do about it?


Plan for delivery

With the help of the original practitioners and EDI’s own early experiences, the delivery approach has been distilled into 15 essential elements

Develop a foundation for delivery

Understand the delivery challenge

A. Evaluate past and present performance

B. Understand drivers of performance and relevant activities

A. Determine your reform strategy

B. Set targets and establish trajectories

C. Produce delivery plans

A. Establish routines to drive and monitor performance

B. Solve problems early and rigorously

C. Sustain and continually build momentum

Drive delivery

A. Define your aspiration

B. Review the current state of delivery

C. Build the delivery unit

D. Establish a “guiding coalition”

2 3 41

Create an irreversible delivery culture

5

A. Build system capacity all the timeB. Communicate the delivery messageC. Unleash the “alchemy of relationships”

Help system decide what it is trying to

do for its students

Help system understand its current state and

why

Help system remain

focused on its priorities

Help system connect

current work to goals for

students

Help stakeholders inside and outside of the system understand the work underway and how they connect to the work


We believe that a committed leadership team using the delivery tools will achieve significant results for students

Results for students

Bold, committed leadership

Building the skillset of a small group within the agency

Rigorous and consistent application of 15 elements across the agency


At EDI, you may here people make references to a linchpin

linchpin (n.) 1. A pin passed through the end of an axel to keep a wheel in

position2. Used figuratively to mean something, or someone, that holds

the various elements of a complicated structure together


EDI has 3 main types of support for partner systems

Intensive engagement

▪ Dedicated Engagement Manager who provides on-the-ground and virtual support

▪ 12-18 months of support▪ Available to systems that

commit to fully implementing the delivery approach

Network of deliveryleaders

▪ Create a professional learning community ofdelivery practitioners

▪ Support via face-to-face convenings, webinars, and conference calls

▪ Available to prospective partners, intensive engagement systems,and “alumni”

Tools, resources, and bestpractices

▪ Manage a continuously evolving body of knowledge about delivery, including:– Case stories– Exemplars of work in

partner systems– Tools such as rubrics,

templates, exercises, and training materials

– Short video lessons on each element of delivery by Michael Barber

▪ Available to network systemsvia online learning portal


A typical intensive engagement focuses on capacity-building, especially in the early stages

“Typical” Engagement Timeline

JanActivities

▪ Delivery capacity review

▪ Initial training

▪ Facilitate delivery planning

▪ Train and coach delivery unit

Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct

▪ Creation of delivery unit

▪ Public kickoff: integrating delivery and project mgmt

▪ Establish delivery routines:– Stocktakes– Monthly notes

Resources required for intensive engagement

▪ 40% of an FTE dedicated to state▪ Support from CEO/Deputy Director and other program staff▪ Two 1-2 day trips per month▪ Resources may be more intensive in early stages and taper off

later

Critical success factors

▪ State chief commitment▪ Access to senior team▪ Established delivery

leader/unit


EDI Organization Chart, Eff. March 20, 2014

Chief Executive Officer: Kathy Cox

K-12 Engagement Manager:

Corey Sullivan


Tom DeWire

K-12 Director: Nick Rodriguez

Accounting Manager: Marc Raffel

Executive Assistant:Lisa Smith

Executive Assistant:

Krissy Haynes

Director of Finance and Operations:

Mike DiConti


Catherine Cullen

Program Associate:

Duncan Robb

Program Director: Ellyn Artis

HE Engagement Manager:

Omari Burnside

HE (50%) Senior Engagement

Manager: Monica Martinez

Higher Education Director & Executive

Director of NASHRebecca Martin

K-12 (50%) Senior Engagement

Manager: Monica Martinez

EDI EM (50%); NASH Coordinator (50%):Jonathan Gagliardi

Program Manager: Sara Kerr


Lauren Kurczewski

Program Associate: Ashleigh

McFadden

Program Associate:

Lauren Strickland

Program Associate: Aasha

Rajani


Richard Eyre


The CSU Story

Today’s Agenda


Overview of EDI

Delivery in the California State University System


In 2009, the California State University system joined the Access to Success Initiative and set ambitious goals

They committed to increase graduation rates an additional six percentage points, while cutting in half the gap for underrepresented students by 2015

CSU Graduation Rates Current 2015 goal IncreaseOverall 46% 54% 8%

URM 41% 51% 10%Non-URM 48% 55% 7%


The system held a “Graduation Initiative” kickoff with campus leaders from the 23 CalState institutions

Goals:▪Agree on goals▪Identify preliminary

strategies▪Establish planning

timeline

Participants:▪System Chancellor▪Chief Academic Officer▪All 23 campus

presidents▪All 23 campus provosts


Campus leaders agreed to achieve grad rates that would put them in the top quartile of national averages of peer institutions

This would raise the overall system graduation rate to 54 percent.


Leaders prioritized system- and campus-level strategies based on projected impact

These high-priority strategies were included in campus delivery plans

Online courses recognized all CSUs

What are the key actions to increase graduation rates and narrow gaps?

Ease of implemen-tation

Impact High Medium

System and Campus

Identify student success as highest value for campus

Incentivize students through fees

Simplify Gen Ed

Common transfer course structure –including CCs

Shift funding to incentivize graduation

No more than 120 units (some lower)

Campus

• Advising – Peer advising – Electronic advising

• Road maps • DARs

Career pathways

• Block registration for 1 year medium/ high)

Midterm freshman differentiation systemOperational optimization of curriculum

Link learning outcomes to instructor evals

Earlier remediation – online

Improve/create system of out of class student engagement opportunities

1st/2nd year programs

Academic guidance• For profit model • Advisor and block scheduling

Decouple seat time and recognition of skills by credit

System

Mandatory application for financial aid

System inactivesfor graduation improvement


2

1

2

Declare any course transferable between the different campuses

Common student number system (K to end of college)

Mandating EAP

Early major declaration

Cap major units

Easy

Hard

Ease

of

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Lower “cut scores” in Math and English

Common academic calendar and start and end dates

1

Impact

• Advising -Peer advising -Electronic advising

• Road maps

• DARs

• Block registration for 1 year (medium/high)


Leaders prioritized system- and campus-level strategies based on projected impact

These high-priority strategies were included in campus delivery plans

Online courses recognized all CSUs

What are the key actions to increase graduation rates and narrow gaps?

Ease of implemen-tation

Impact High Medium

System and Campus

Identify student success as highest value for campus

Incentivize students through fees

Simplify Gen Ed


Shift funding to incentivize graduation

No more than 120 units (some lower)

Campus

• Advising – Peer advising – Electronic advising

• Road maps • DARs

Career pathways

• Block registration for 1 year medium/ high)

Midterm freshman differentiation systemOperational optimization of curriculum

Link learning outcomes to instructor evals

Earlier remediation – online

Improve/create system of out of class student engagement opportunities

1st/2nd year programs

Academic guidance• For profit model • Advisor and block scheduling

Decouple seat time and recognition of skills by credit

System

Mandatory application for financial aid

System inactivesfor graduation improvement


2

1

2

Declare any course transferable between the different campuses

Common student number system (K to end of college)

Mandating EAP

Early major declaration

Cap major units

Easy

Hard

Ease

of

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Lower “cut scores” in Math and English

Common academic calendar and start and end dates

1

Impact

• Advising -Peer advising -Electronic advising

• Road maps• DARs

• Block registration for 1 year (medium/high)


Delivery plans varied in depth and quality, but guided campuses to kick-start or formalize student success efforts

Strategies

Key stakeholders

Interim milestones

Progress monitoring

Each campus plan included elements of delivery taught at the meeting

Improving Six-Year Graduation Rates: A Preliminary Plan in Coordination with a CSU-Wide Initiative

California State University, Fullerton December 2009 (Revised February 25, 2010) Task Force: Chair

Ephraim Smith, Vice President, Academic Affairs Faculty Susamma Barua, Associate Dean, College of Engineering and Computer Science

Scott Hewitt, Professor of Chemistry and Chair, Academic Senate

Larry Johnson, Professor and Chair, Department of Art Dawn Person, Professor, Educational Leadership Humanities and Social Sciences Faculty (vacant due to recent resignation)

Students Joseph Lopez, Executive Vice President, Associated Students, Inc.

Juan Moreno, Student, Humanities and Social Sciences Administrators Claire Cavallaro, Dean, College of Education

Bridget Driscoll, Director, Academic Advising Nancy Page Fernandez, Director, Freshman Programs Lea Jarnagin, Assistant to the VP, Student Affairs Robert Miyake, Assistant Dean, Mihaylo College of Business and Economics

Jessica Schutte, Director, Financial Aid Office Ed Sullivan, Acting Assistant VP, Institutional Research and Analytical Studies

Ed Trotter, Acting Associate VP, Undergraduate Programs

Jessica Wagoner, Director of Admissions

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, EAST BAY CLOSING THE GRADUATION GAP – A Working Action Plan February 22, 2010

Universities are increasingly judged on their graduation rates both within the CSU system and

nationally. Accreditation agencies and the CSU Board of Trustees have expressed a long-

standing interest in improving student success along with increasing access. In this spirit, the

California State University Executive Council met with external consultants on October 26-27,

2009 and agreed to support a systemwide initiative to increase graduation rates by 2015. The

goals are that each university should improve its overall graduation rate to the top quartile of its

peer group (or six percentage points, whichever is greater), and reduce the gap between

traditionally under-represented groups and other students by half. Each university was directed

to prepare a plan designed to achieve these goals and submit it to the Chancellor’s Office by

December 25, 2009. Cal State East Bay has a continuing interest in improving graduation rates for all segments of its

student population. The University recently renewed its commitment to timely remediation,

improved retention, reduced time to degree and increased graduation rates during its educational

effectiveness review by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) in 2007. Cal

State East Bay has taken numerous steps to help increase graduation rates and is on the verge of

implementing several more programs that are intended to raise the current six-year graduation

rate for entering freshmen (43%) by six percentage points to 49% by 2015 (for the entering

freshman class of 2009). The following plan addresses retention and graduation rate issues at Cal State East Bay, and

provides a series of actions intended to raise existing rates. To provide context, the plan outlines

the recent history of the University’s efforts to assist students and describes the steps to be taken

in the future to augment its graduation rates. This plan offers a quantitative model that will be

used to measure the relative success of those steps taken by the University in the coming years.


As campuses began their work, the CSU Delivery Team simultaneously developed a system-level delivery plan…

The team solicited suggestions for system-level actions from campus stakeholders

▪Automated Degree Audit▪New Funding Models▪Improving College Readiness▪Online Courses▪Highlighting Innovative Campus

Actions▪Affordable Learning Solutions▪Equity Scorecard▪GE Reform▪Improved Transfer Curriculum▪Common CSU Course Numbering

System▪Community College Outreach▪Making Excellence Inclusive▪Reduction in Units to Degree▪Transfer Course Articulation▪Universal CSU Calendar


…and strengthened connections with campus teams to build capacity and drive progress

▪Campus visits– Initially with all 23, now with select campuses

▪Workshops for campus leaders– Leading Indicators & Using Data– Strategies Targeting URM Students– Engaging Faculty in the Student Success Agenda

▪Bimonthly campus notes– What did your team commit to completing during the past two

months?– What did you do and how did it help?– What will you accomplish in the next two months?

▪Graduation Initiative Summit– Reconvened all provosts to revisit data and refocus on strategies


Example: Early bimonthly note from CSU campus


Focused, sustained efforts to promote student success led to promising early results

After a year of delivery, CSU saw the highest overall graduation rate and the highest URM graduation rate it had ever seen…but the equity gaps continued to widen

CSU Graduation Rates 2000

cohort2001

cohort2002

cohort2003

cohortOverall 48% 47% 49% 51%URM 40% 38% 40% 43%Non-URM 51% 51% 53% 55%


They went back and refocused their efforts to target strategies toward gap-closing…

The team has sustained momentum through continued routines and targeted strategies▪Automated Degree Audit▪New Funding Models▪Improving College

Readiness▪Online Courses▪Highlighting Innovative

Campus Actions▪Affordable Learning

Solutions▪Equity Scorecard▪GE Reform▪Improved Transfer

Curriculum▪Common CSU Course

Numbering System▪Community College

Outreach▪Making Excellence

Inclusive▪Reduction in Units to

Degree▪Transfer Course

Articulation▪Universal CSU Calendar▪Data-driven Decision

Making

▪Early Start Initiative▪Graduation Calculator▪Require declaration of major by 60

units▪Additional charges for units over

132▪Create a common student

numbering system▪Reward campuses that increase

URM grad rates and those who exceed grad rate target

▪Lower cut scores in Math and English to national averages

▪Suspend all academic programs over 120 Units


Leading indicators suggest their efforts are paying off

Data shows a continued increase in graduation rates and leading indicators suggest that gaps are beginning to narrow

CSU Graduation Rates

2003 cohort

2004 cohort

2005 cohort

2006 cohort

2007 cohort

Overall 51% 52% 51% 51% 51%URM 43% 44% 42% 42% 43%Non-URM 55% 56% 56% 56% 56%

Campuses focus on the 2009 cohort’s year-to-year retention given differences in freshman cohort composition

First and second year retention data show improvements are being made to close the achievement gap


The CSU delivery team continues to sustain momentum by ‘reinventing’ their delivery effort

▪Bid out $7.2M dollars to campuses to support strategies related to increasing student success and closing the achievement gap

▪Engaged their new chancellor in this effort so that it remains a priority for the system

▪Chartered a path to reset the goals in this next phase

The team has successfully…


The CSU Story

Today’s Agenda


Overview of EDI

© 2009 THE EDUCATION TRUST

The Access to Success Initiative:

Charting a Necessary Path

Ellyn Artis, Simon Day, & Richard Page-Jones March 8, 2010


WHO WE ARE WHAT WE DO

The Education Trust works for the high academic achievement of all

students at all levels, pre-kindergarten through college,

and forever closing the achievement gaps that separate

low-income students and students of color from other

youth. Our basic tenet is this — All students will learn at high

levels when they are taught to high levels.

Advocacy to help schools, colleges, and communities

mount campaigns to close gaps Research and policy analysis on

patterns and practices that cause or close gaps

Technical assistance to schools, colleges, and community-based organizations to raise student achievement and close gaps

The Education Trust


The A2S Commitments Cut current gaps in half by 2015 for college entry

and completion

Reflect the economic & racial diversity of the state

Count students who are not always counted

Improve overall student access and success

Report on progress publicly each year

39


Need to produce more college graduates to compete in the

global economy Changing demographics

demand focus on underrepresented populations

Current trends moving in the wrong direction in terms of real progress on access and success

The Access to Success Imperative


Measuring progress toward A2S goals

ACCESS: Does the system’s entering class reflect the economic and racial diversity of its state’s high school graduates?

SUCCESS: How do the success rates of low-income and underrepresented minority students compare with those of other students in the system?

ACCESS+SUCCESS: Do the system’s graduates reflect the diversity of its state’s high school graduates?

©2014 Access to Success Provosts Meeting 42 42

Include all students, not just first-time, full-time

Include part-time and transfer students, many of whom are low-income and underrepresented minorities

Report retention and success rates for low-income and transfer students at institution and in system

A2S Metrics Count All Students


Are we increasing success rates for underrepresented students?

GAP: Are we increasing success rates for underrepresented students relative to peers?

Benchmarking Progress on Success


The data handouts answer

these and other questions

about student success on

your campus.

Benchmarking Progress on Success


What is the overall freshmen rate?

What is the rate for transfer students?

How have these rates changed over time?

Are we increasing overall graduation rates?

Change in the Freshmen graduation rate since 2005 0 pts + 15 ptsChange in the Transfer graduation rate since 2005

State University

Bachelor's Programs

SUCCESS: IS THE CAMPUS IMPROVING THE RATE AT WHICH UNDERREPRESENTED STUDENTS COMPLETE?

OVERALL GRADUATION RATES

Freshmen graduation rate in 2012 51% 65%Transfer graduation rate in 2012


Non-Pell graduation rate in 2012 (cohort)

53% (1,123)

Change in the Non-Pell graduation rate in since 2005

+ 3 pts

Gap between Pell and Non-Pell graduation rates

10 ptsChange in Pell/Non-Pell graduation rate gap since 2005

Widened 13 pts

LOW-INCOME FRESHMEN

Pell graduation rate in 2012 (cohort)

43% (315)

Change in the Pell graduation rate in since 2005

-10 pts

53%

52% 52%50%

44%43%

50%

56% 57%

53% 54% 53%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

1999/05 2002/08 2003/09 2004/10 2005/11 2006/12Pell Rate Non-Pell Rate

Are we increasing graduation rates for underrepresented students?

What is the grad rate of Pell freshmen?

What is the grad rate of non-Pell freshmen?

How do rates for these student groups differ?



53% (1,123)


+ 3 pts



Widened 13 pts

LOW-INCOME FRESHMEN


43% (315)


-10 pts

53%

52% 52%50%

44%43%

50%

56% 57%

53% 54% 53%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%


How have graduation rates for Pell and non-Pell freshmen changed over time?




53% (1,123)


+ 3 pts



Widened 13 pts

LOW-INCOME FRESHMEN


43% (315)


-10 pts

53%

52% 52%50%

44%43%

50%

56% 57%

53% 54% 53%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%


How has the Pell freshmen rate changed over time? How has the non-Pell freshmen rate changed? Has the graduation rate gap between these groups

narrowed or widened over time?


Thank You

delivery bootcamp delivery primer

Documents