DeliverEd Proposal for Partnership: Jefferson County Public Schools Context and Need Jefferson County Public Schools (Jeffco) has been under new leadership for several months. The new Superintendent and his team are concluding an entry and listening tour of the district and are preparing to release a strategic vision in November. Like the Altitude Report in the Superintendent?s previous work in Eagle County, the vision will form a blueprint for serving the students and families ofJefferson County with excellence. And as with the Altitude Report, delivering on the promise of this vision will require operationalizing and implementing it with rigor. At the same time, Jefferson County is not a blank slate. Past leaders have put in place initiatives and processes PDSA) that are part of the broader family of improvement and implementation science. These processes could be foundations to build on, but they must also be refined if they are to play a meaningful role in driving toward the new vision. The Superintendent has had success applying the delivery approach to implementation challenges in the past, and is interested in bringing a similar sensibility to Jefferson County. He has made a critical leadership hire, Tom McDerm ott, who will form the core of this effort. DeliverEd is pleased to propose a 2-phase partnership with Jefferson County to understand the district?s current delivery capacity, recommend a path to strengthening it using the delivery approach, and working alongside Tom and other leaders to build permanent capacity in the district to use these tools. Delivery Approach DeliverEd helps education leaders deliver results for students at scale. We are experts in the delivery approach, a proven methodology for managing implementation across complex education systems and organizations. This flexible approach includes tools and best practices in: I Setting student outcome goals that define and measure success clearly; I Benchmarking and developing policies and strategies for achieving those goals; I Rapid, operational, and practical planning that guides the day-to-day work of implementation; - Establishing systems for performance management and continuous improvement against the plan and the goals; - Real-time problem-solving during implementation that emphasizes how strategies reach the field at scale; and - Culture and change management to build the necessary capacity and stakeholder support to do the work. Our team has decades of collective experience in applying these tools and practices in dozens of education systems and organizations around the country. Our expertise in the delivery approach will be a helpful source of capacity?building for Jefferson County as it seeks to establish this approach internally. DeliverEd Key Objectives The overall aim of this support would be to define and deliver results against the priorities of the Superintendent?s vision, so that students and families see the district delivering on its promises. In the service of this aim, we propose two phases of support the second of which will be refined by the results of the first. Phase 1: Review the district?s current delivery capacity {Sep tember-Novem bar 201 7) We would begin the partnership with a capacity review to understand the and challenges of the district?s current delivery systems. The review would take place in November, but we would use September and October to provide light?touch remote support to Tom in preparing the review and in thinking more broadly about what comes after. The capacity review is a rapid but rigorous review of an education system?s current capacity to apply the tools of the delivery approach. It includes multiple modes of evidence collection: - Document review of existing planning material the vision document and its predecessors); I A 23-day on-site visit that includes interviews and focus groups with stakeholders at every level of the delivery chain, from central office staff to principals and teachers at school sites; - A facilitated exercise with the leadership team in the Superintendent?s office to self-assess current capacity to deliver; and - of the above evidence into a report of findings and a series of recommendations for how to tailor the delivery approach to Jeffco?s context. The review would be structured around a 15-point assessment framework that has been benchmarked with dozens of other education systems around the country: The delivery framework . I Develop a 4% Unde'Stand Plan for foundation the delivery for delivery challenge A. De?ne your A. Evaluate past A Determine your A. Establish aspiration and present reform strategy routines to drive 3. Review the performance 3. Draw the and monitor current state of B. Understand delivery chain delivery drivers of c_ set targets and B. Solve problems c. Build the performance establish early and delivery unit and re'evant trajectories rigorous?! 0. Establish a ?Miles c. Sustain and ?guiding continually build coalition" momentum 6 :1 1? Create an irreversible delivery culture A. Build system capacity all the time 8. Communicate the delivery message C. Unleash the ?alchemy of relationships" In Jeffco?s context, we would cover this entire framework but add a few additional focus questions: DeliverEd I How well understood is the Superintendent?s new vision? What will it take to generate even wider circles of buy-in? I What will it take to operationalize that vision so that students and families feel change at the school and classroom level? I What other improvement science methodologies are in place, and what kind of potential do they hold for strengthening delivery? What are the opportunities and challenges they represent, and how can these be navigated? The resulting report include a ?heat map? (against the delivery framework) of to build on in the current work, as well as gaps to focus on filling. It will provide additional guidance and direction for tailoring and agreeing on the best use of our support in the next phase. Phase 2: Operationalize the vision and deliver results (6-12 months, starting in November 201 7) As noted, the exact scope of the second phase of work would be informed by the results of the capacity review. Based on what we know thus far, we believe that second phase should be defined by at least three key parameters: I A delivery team: The Superintendent has already signaled his intention to build a delivery team around Tom?s leadership. Our role would be to build this team?s capacity to use all the relevant tools of Deliverology, so that after the partnership ends Jeffco is left with permanent and sustainable capacity to do this work. I A 6?12 month partnership: In our experience, the gradual release of reSponsibility to a delivery team takes about this amount of time, with some support frontloaded and gradually tapering off in the later months. We would staff a team to provide a combination of face-to-face and remote support, working hand-in-hand with the delivery team at each stage of the process. I A focus on early wins: By far the most important thing any leader can do at the beginning of an effort like this is to move the numbers on a few high-priority outcomes within the first 3-6 months of the work. This is the key to showing stakeholders that this vision isn?t like the others that came before it, and it builds momentum by recruiting more of those stakeholders to support the work. This shift is critical to delivering on the medium and long-term outcomes Specified in the vision. With these parameters in mind, a DeliverEd team would likely spend the bulk of Phase 2 supporting Jefch and its delivery team to accomplish a few key objectives: I Prioritize outcomes and develop specific metrics for each one: 0 We would encourage you to refine your list of outcome metrics according to 3 criteria: I Is it meaningful? If you move the numbers on this measure, will students and families care? I Is it moveable? Do you have sufficient leverage to impact the metric? I Is it measurable? Do you already collect well-defined, specific data on the metric or are you willing to do whatever it takes to get this stream of data within 3 months? 0 Jeffco will want to select a range of metrics that it feels comfortable reporting on and can define with exact specificity. We would work with the delivery team to identify the ?equation? and data source for each potential metric, as well as its current measurability. DeliverEd The prioritized list would also include 1-3 "quick win? metrics on which we agree that we can reasonably move the numbers within 3-6 months. I Develop a delivery plan for each outcome that: Identifies the relevant strategies: For each outcome, specify and describe the strategies that will be undertaken in order to achieve it, with estimate of the impact of each on the goal over time. Assigns leadership, mahagement, and accountability: For each goal, assign a single leader on who will own it and be responsible for implementing the relevant strategies Identify the relevant delivery chainls): For each strategy, specify 1) how it will change the day-to-day experience ofJeffco students and families and 2) the Specific people at the central office, school, and classroom level through whom this change will be delivered, with clear roles and responsibilities for each. Anticipate and prepare for risks: For each delivery chain, identify the potential weak links and ways to strengthen them (or, alternatively, ways to redesign the delivery chain). Create feedback loops for managing performance: For the high risk areas in the delivery chains, identify the intermediate indicators that will demonstrate whether implementation is occurring as planned, along with a plan for regularly collecting and reporting on them. These indicators are often focused at the classroom level and break down into five types of questions: I Did we do what the strategy said we would do? I Did front-line practitioners like it? I Do they know what is expected of them? I Are they changing their behavior in line with those expectations? I Are student outcomes improving as a result? Describe the resources and support required: For each strategy, specify the money, people, time, and technology that will be needed to implement it. Set a trajectory for implementation: Aggregate the estimates of impact that each strategy will have to produce a projection for how we will reach each goal. I Establish performance management routines: A strategic plan is only as strong as the routines for monitoring progress against it. Translating the delivery plan into real change will require regular, rigorous, and sustained attention from leadership. Delivery routines anchored by a series of performance dialogues between the Superintendent and key leaders accountable for each of the outcomes are essential to regularly taking stock of progress against the plan. They give the Superintendent a simple structure for creating internal accountability for the plan. We will work with the delivery team to create a rotating schedule of routines and design protocols for them, including the use of DeliverEd?s Delivery Assessment Framework for evaluating and comparing the likelihood of delivery for each initiative and outcome. DeliverEd Delivery assessment framework Judgement Rating Rationale Summary Degree of challenge MIHIVH Quality of planning, implementation a . - rmanoe management ., . Understanding the challenge . . Governance, Program 8: I Project Management Managing Performance Stage of delivery L1121314 Key Highly problematic requires urgent and decisive action (n A Problematic requira subslantial attention, some aspeds need urgent attention Mixed aspect(s) require substantial attention, some good Good requires re?nement and systematic implementation 0 In the early months of the work, we will lead the preparation and facilitation of these routines, gradually releasing responsibility to the delivery team to manage them after the engagement is concluded. I Deliver quick wins and longer-term results: 0 Though this is the last key objective, it is the most important and takes the most time: working with the delivery team to drive the delivery of outcomes promised in the plan. 0 The jumping-off point for this is the delivery routines, which serve as progress checks for results and identify problems that need to be solved during implementation. 0 We will work with the delivery team to facilitate and drive the necessary course corrections to stay on track for each outcome, including: I Continued facilitation or co-facilitation of the monitoring routines; I Adding additional checkpoints for outcomes that are off track; I Direct support to the accountable leaders in managing implementation where necessary; I Leadership of problem-solving reviews, intensive deep dives, and revisions to planning when delivery is off track for any of the outcomes; and I Continuous capacity-building for teams managing the priorities to manage implementation, engage the necessary stakeholders to maintain support, and make change irreversible. In particular, we will prioritize achieving the ?quick wins? identified among the priorities and delivering the first real results of the delivery effort by mid-2018. Resources and Costs For phase 1, we propose a flexible engagement model with light touch virtual support (checloins with Tom McDermott) up until the November capacity review, with 2-3 days onsite in November. DeliverEd For phase 2, we propose a flexible engagement model that prioritizes regular, targeted on-site support (1-2 trips per month), with remote time reserved in between for supporting preparation, research, drafting of delivarables, and bi-weekly check-in calls. Our method of service delivery is outcomes-based: we will do what it takes to fulfill the objectives in this scope regardless of the time required to do so. We estimate that this partnership will require 8-10 staff days per month, but will vary this as needed to achieve the objectives. Corey Gordon will provide day-to-day leadership of the partnership alongside Rebecca Davis (who will provide coverage during the months of September and October while Corey is on maternity leave). Nick Rodriguez will serve as a senior adviser and be present at critical interactions. Our key point of contact for this partnership will be Tom McDermott, with whom we will establish bi-weekly routines for planning and feedback. Our partnership will be possible because of a shared commitment to Jeffco?s goals for student achievement. To that end, the total cost of the partnership, including all fees and expenses, is broken down as follows: I Phase 1: $25,000 I Phase 2: $15,000 per month for 6-12 months These phases may be contracted separately and with no further obligation. We thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal and look forward to discussing it with you at your convenience. DeliverEd Appendix About DeliverEd DeliverEd is driven by one mission: to achieve significant results for students by building the education sector's capacity to manage implementation of reforms at scale. We believe that public education suffers from a massive implementation gap; we have no shortage of policies and ideas for reforming our field, but we do not focus nearly enough on how these ideas actually get translated into action that transforms a system. The delivery approach is our proven method for closing this gap. We aim to transform the field of public education by making this approach a standard skillset for every leader at every level. Our values reflect and reinforce this mission: I Commitment to outcomes: We aren't successful unless our partners move the needle on results for students and families. We only work with leaders who are serious about doing this, and we go about it with a sense of pace and urgency. I Capacity-building: Our partnerships aren't successful unless we leave behind a person or team fully capable of applying the delivery approach without us. We won't form a partnership until we know who will carry on the work after we're done. I Obsessive quality: We do whatever it takes to get it right for our partners, from answers to big strategic questions to the smallest details of the work we produce. For that reason, our partnership agreements are focused on outcomes and deliverables rather than inputs. And if you're not satisfied with our work, neither are we. I Flexibility: Aside from these values, we have no other "non-negotiables" in the way we work. We adapt our approach to fit your circumstances, we collaborate eagerly and humbly with others, and we have no ego about what the work is called or who gets the credit. Our Team Nick Rodriguez Nick Rodriguez is a founding principal of DeliverEd who brings nearly two decades of experience in sector reform and change management. Prior to his current role, he was a co?founder and Director at the Education Delivery Institute (EDI), a nonprofit that focuses on helping education leaders to improve the implementation of their reforms at scale. In this role, Nick was responsible for growing and maintaining a network of school, district, state, and nonprofit/philanthropic leaders who are changing the way they work to serve students through better practices .3. Michael Barber Nick Rodriguez - Ellyn Artis Deliverolo Wracticgy hummus 1? I I DeliverEd in planning, performance management, and organizational change. He is the author "Deliverology in Practice,? a field guide for education leaders which is the basis for DeliverEd?s approach to implementation. Corey Gordon Corey is a founding principal of DeliverEd, bringing years of experience as both a classroom teacher and trusted adviser to school, district, and state leaders. In this role, she manages many of DeliverEd's partnerships with charter schools, district Superintendents, and non-profit leaders. She is an expert at building relationships and a master facilitator, having taught the "delivery approach" to hundreds of educators across the country. Additionally, she serves as CFO, overseeing DeliverEd's contracting and financials. Prior to starting DeliverEd, Corey worked for five years with the Education Delivery Institute (EDI) managing engagements with partners at all levels of the US. education sector. In that role, she built the capacity of school, district, and state leaders to use the delivery approach to drive dramatic improvements in student outcomes. Much of her work at EDI focu5ed on building the district?level practice, by leading partnerships with Brockton Public Schools (MA), Providence Public School District (RI), and Brevard Public Schools (FL). Prior to working at EDI, Corey taught special education in Metro Nashville Public Schools. Rebecca Davis Rebecca has spent her career supporting leaders of K-12 education systems to successfully implement a variety of initiatives aimed at improving student outcomes. Most recently Rebecca worked at the Education Delivery Institute (EDI) to support local, state, and national education agencies to assess current capacity, set measurable goals and interim targets, establish plans to achieve those goals, and implement routines to continuously monitor progress. She has special interest in using data visualization to communicate and investigate student success. Prior to joining EDI Rebecca worked at the US. Department of Education managing a portfolio of multi- million dollar Race to the Top grants to support states in reaching identified goals implementing comprehensive education reforms. In particular, she focused on engaging in performance and project management, interpreting policy across education reform areas, and providing ongoing technical assistance and support. Rebecca began her career as a middle school English teacher in Los Angeles, California. She holds a Master's in Educational Policy and Management from Harvard Graduate School of Education, a Master's in Secondary education from Loyola Marymount University, and a Bachelor's in and art theory and practice from Northwestern University.