Gates Next Gen Systems Initiative Colorado Coalition – Phase I Strategic Plan Presentation

1. Gates Next Gen Systems Initiative Colorado Coalition – Phase I Strategic Plan Presentation Coalition Team Samantha Long, Director, Initiatives, Colorado Legacy Foundation Gretchen Morgan, Executive Director, Choice and Innovation Unit, Colorado Department of Education Sandy Steiner, Director of Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness, Adams County School District 50 Greg Wilborn, Personalized Learning Lead, Colorado Springs District 11 Tiffany Brown-Utoft, Integration Manager, Thompson School District

2. Value Proposition WHY WHO WHAT + HOW ________________________ IMPACT

3. WHYNeed for Next Generation Learning • The Colorado job market is evolving quickly • Colorado is producing far fewer college graduates than our job market demands • The Colorado Paradox • There are fewer and fewer places for those without degrees to begin their career

4. WHYNeed for Next Generation Learning 2011 College Matriculation Data 12.2% of students earned 21+ 36.4% of students earned 21+ 51.8% of students earned 21+ Coalition Expectation for PWR = 21 4

5. WHYNeed for Statewide Scale • 178 districts; local control state 5

6. WHYPolicy Opportunity • State policy is a powerful way to focus and sustain efforts • In May 2013, the State Board of Education adopted a new set of Graduation Guidelines which create a positive incentive to shift systems toward personalized learning (PL) • Focus on competency-based requirements rather than seat time • Provide students with a menu of options to demonstrate readiness (portfolios and capstone projects), rather than a single exit exam • Promote multiple pathways for student learning • Reinforce the next generation learning student outcomes • However, this policy also creates an unintendedincentive to lower the bar for some students • Our strategic plan provides an exciting opportunity to create resources, practices, systems, and policies that support rigorous and high-standards implementation of the new competency-based system in Coalition schools and statewide 6

7. WHOThe Promise of the Coalition Lies in Sharing, Scaling, and Sustaining PL trainings, modules, and resources Competency-based systems, models, and tools Personalized instruction, performance-based assessments Partners, awareness, and resources Policy, permission, and tools

8. WHOCoalition Districts Demonstrate a Microcosm of Districts Statewide Source: CDE 8

9. WHATColorado’s Vision for Next Generation Learning – Student Outcomes

10. WHATColorado’s Vision for Next Generation Learning – Learning Environment Characteristics

11. WHATColorado’s Vision for Next Generation Learning – System Characteristics

12. HOWOperationalizing Colorado’s Vision for Next Generation Learning New measures and metrics School design parameters District system redesign parameters

13. HOWMechanisms for Building and Sustaining District Scale Jul. ’14 Mar. ‘14 Jan. ‘15 Jul. ‘15 Jul. ‘16 Jan. ‘17 School Design and Implementation Implementation Year 1 Implementation Year 2 Pre-Implementation Implementation Planning Knowledge Building Model Building School Selection District-WideScale Learn from pilot sites Engage CONSUMERS and EARLY ADOPTERS Participate in relevant topical networks Seek school teams and communities Engage critical friends Examine, basic procedures of schools Evaluate district role related to basic procedures Collaborate with coalition partners District-Level Redesign Examine models of district organization Collaborate with consumers Generate 2-4 district models Engage consumers in evaluating models Engage DISTRICT STAFF and BOARD LEADERSHIP

14. HOWMechanisms for Building and Sustaining State Scale Policy CDE, CLF and State Policy School District School Policy Support

15. HOWOrganizational Structure • Establishes vision and priorities; creates common criteria and processes to address them • Implement next gen • models and systems; • support each other and schools; • leverage and inform policies needed to scale • Ensures quality through fidelity to established processes; • facilitates support for and accountability among all partners • Removes barriers to next gen learning in practice, policy, and procedure; enables systems conditions needed to scale

16. HOWProjected Phase II budget Proposed Phase II Grant Budget: Total Cost Allocation Proposed Phase II Grant Budget: Cost Breakdown by Type of Support Dollars $600,000 $291,940 District Indirect Costs School-Level Supports Personnel Time – District Leads Centralized Supports for Schools and Districts Coalition-Level Supports Additional Travel and Meetings Funds Direct Support for Schools – 80% $120,360 Office Supplies Travel and Meetings Centralized Supports for Schools and Districts 48.7% Personnel Time – NGL Director CLF Indirect /Support Costs Coalition-Level Supports 20.1% School Design Activities Personnel Costs 16 Technical Assistance Ancillary and Incremental Costs

17. IMPACTThe Promise of the Coalition Lies in Sharing, Scaling, and Sustaining 17

18. Appendix

19. Coalition partners • Partner to CDE and seven-year old education nonprofit • Accelerates innovation, collaboration, and capacity building • Leading next gen learning initiative with CDE Colorado Legacy Foundation (CLF) Colorado Department of Education (CDE) Adams County School District 50(10K Students) Colorado Springs D11 (28K Students) Thompson School District (16K Students) • State education agency • Reform priorities lay strong foundation for next gen learning, including recently adopted Graduation Guidelines • Implements and shapes accountability • Districtwide school competency-based system (CBS) • Launched Westminster Virtual Academy (WVA) in 2012-2013 to provide blended learning • Opened Colorado STEM academy in 2013-14 • District PL vision supported by robust strategic planning, professional development modules, technology plans, and change management • Two full-time district experts in schools testing and observing PL models • Currently implementing personalized learning strategies through Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC), Math Design Collaborative (MDC), and performance-based assessments Next gen key to CLF strategy going forward; can provide common supports and serve as critical friend to coalition districts The education system is not producing results at the national and state level. Essential partner to bring next gen vision to scale Has been implementing CBS and the district is still behind state averages. At a point for targeted assistance in educational redesign Strong start in PL; stagnant or declining in proficiency in all areas for the past 5 years Can build upon LDC/ MDC work; Hispanic and White students are two largest subgroups with a large achievement gap

20. Districts’ strengths can support each others’ needs

21. The recently adopted CO Graduation Guidelines are well aligned to next gen learning environments… Characteristics of Next Gen Learning Environments 21

22. … as well as Colorado’s vision for next gen student outcomes and the Gates attributes of PL (1 of 2) 22

23. … as well as Colorado’s vision for next gen student outcomes and the Gates attributes of PL (2 of 2) • By aligning our success metrics to the next gen student outcomes, we will be able to measure student progress towards meeting the requirements of the Colorado Graduation Guidelines 23

24. The proposed school selection process provides common Coalition support while allowing for personalization to district needs Common Across All Districts Personalized to Districts School Selection Process • Includes consistent: • Readiness criteria • Application and selection process • Application rubric • Includes personalized: • Aspects of application process (e.g., self-assessment) • District-led interviews • District portfolio strategy 2 schools per district Selection Criteria • Strong school leadership, teacher and community engagement, PL experience, and technology readiness • Fit with district portfolio/strategy Guiding Principles, Design Parameters, and Features • Guiding principles • School design parameters • Entry point within design parameters • Selection of features 24

25. Districts have agreed to common school design parameters that are aligned to the Colorado Graduation Guidelines • Schools offer students competency-based pathways that offer flexible timing • Schools offer students deep interest pathways with varying levels of integration into core academic curriculums • Schools provide students the opportunity to create subject area portfolios to collect and demonstrate competency in specific academic area • Schools support all students in developing ICAP plans in grades 6-12, and design ICAPS to ensure meaningful attention to each of the five next generation learning student outcomes. Structural School Design Parameters Instructional School Design Parameters • Educators articulate and/or work with students to co-create learning targets, quality criteria, and rubrics – and teach students how to use those tools to accurately self-assess their current level of performance and what they need to do to further improve • Educators analyze individual student participation and performance on varied and frequent assessments, so they know what students know, can do, and are ready for, as well as what motivates then and how they work and learn best • Students are supported in using learning targets and individual goals to analyze their performance and identify not just strengths and gaps, but also how their effort and choice of strategy correlate with changes in their progress toward those targets and goals. • Students are supported in making important choices regarding the modality of instruction, how independently to work, and how to use class time, given their understanding of the learning targets and their current level of performance. • Educators strive to make learning relevant and personal for students by tying real world examples and student interests to the curriculum content or delivery • Students apply and demonstrate learning through performance tasks and public presentations of learning. Districts and schools provide personalized learning for adults – so that teachers maximize their unique potential and learn the value, techniques and impact of personalized learning first hand. Educators then carry that vision of learning into their classrooms. These design parameters represent a menu of options for districts and schools – each district is coming into the work at a different entry point, allowing pilot schools and districts to leverage Coalition knowledge sharing

26. School Design and Implementation (1/2) • Analyze current assets and capacity against model • Use priorities and assets analysis to sequence the implementation of model features over 4 years • Identify progress measures and buildout progress monitoring plan • Build out 4-year human capital and universal PD plan • Build out 4-year detailed budget • Buildout ongoing consumer engagement plan • Deep study of… • 21st century workforce context • Design principles • Design parameters • Priorities of consumers of local education system • Analysis of next gen models to identify • The combination of design features • The rationale for that combination • Applicability of the model, or selected components • Identify design components • Model how components work together • Justifythe model’s alignment with design principles and community priorities • Build schedule and staffing model • Identify technology and other resource needs • Identifypolicy/flexibility needs • Buildhigh level budget Implementation Planning Knowledge Building Model Building Pre-Implementation

27. School Design and Implementation (2/2) System Build Out • Tools and resources for teachers and leaders • Policies • Data system set up • Tech infrastructure set up • Organize plans, measures, and progress monitoring into short-cycle plans for each major implementation component • Human Capital • Begin implementation of universal PD plan • Create or adapt coaching and evaluation plan • Build out personalized PD plans for coming year • Sustainability and Scale • Begin implementation of consumer engagement plan • Follow implementation plans • Component plans • Progress monitoring plan • Community engagement plan • Coaching and evaluation plan • Universal PD plan • Personalized PD plan Implementation Year 1 Pre-Implementation

28. District-Wide Scale Jul. ‘14 Mar. ‘14 Jan. ‘15 Jul. ‘15 Jul. ‘16 Jan. ‘17 School Design and Implementation Implementation Year 2 Pre-Implementation Implementation Planning Knowledge Building Implementation Year 1 Model Building School Selection District-WideScale • Engage consumers (school board members, community leaders, students) and other early adopters (staff from interested, but non-selected schools) as critical friends with design teams. Be sure to do so in areas of expertise. • Engage consumers and other early adopters in bearing witness, documenting and sharing successes, failures and learning from pilot sites. • Invite other early adopters to participate in relevant topical networks with people implementing across the consortia. Engage consumers and other early adopters as critical friends at mid-year and end of year progress check points. Seek school teams and communities for second tier of NGL transformations.

29. District-Level Redesign Jul. ‘14 Mar. ‘14 Jan. ‘15 Jul. ‘15 Jul. ‘16 Jan. ‘17 School Design and Implementation Implementation Year 2 Pre-Implementation Implementation Planning Knowledge Building Implementation Year 1 Model Building School Selection District-WideScale Learn from pilot sites Engage CONSUMERS and EARLY ADOPTERS Participate in relevant topical networks Seek school teams and communities Engage critical friends Examine models of different ways to organize a district in service of next gen parameters (models to be generated by advisory board member organization) Collaborate with consumers to determine and prioritize local district design parameters With Coalition working team and technical assistance support, generate 2-4 district models using district-specific information Engage consumers in evaluating models Examine basic procedures of schools (decision-making, purchasing, professional learning, progress monitoring, reporting etc.) Evaluate district role related to basic procedures. Is the district: actively supportive, passively permissive, actively or passively an impediment? Collaborate with Coalition partners to identify potential design parameters for a next gen district Engage staff and board leadership in knowledge building Begin to identify district priorities and evaluate current capacity and policies against priorities District-Level Redesign

30. Each Coalition partner plays a unique role in leveraging Graduation Guidelines to legitimize, support, and inform next gen implementation Theory of Action – Figure 3. Leveraging State Policy to Promote Next Gen School Design Learning across these levels will drive a cycle of continuous improvement Alignment to next gen student outcomes Desired outcome Driver of our work toward Colorado’s next gen student outcomes and environments Alignment to the five characteristics of next gen learning environments Create a network of shared knowledge and support to further implementation Determine features of schools that are able to achieve our desired outcomes Determine features of systemsthat are able to achieve our desired outcomes Driver • Driving towards the goal of all students meeting the Graduation Guidelines will support the development of the next gen student outcomes outlined in Colorado’s vision for next gen learning • The Graduation Guidelines provide new pathways for schools and students that incentivize PL and align with the 5 characteristics of next gen learning. Implementing these learning environments will be the means to the end of all students meeting the Graduation Guidelines • The criteria utilized to select the 2015 Cohort of pilot schools should align with our shared beliefs about the features of schools that can successfully implement next gen learning • Coalition Districts should build a common understanding of the types of district-level support and systems necessary to ensure successful implementation of next gen learning. • CLF and CDEwill learn from school and district implementation to develop and share tools/resources and broker connectionsthat support school and district efforts to reach the desired outcome through the use of next gen learning • Our stated desired outcome for this work is that all schools in Coalition districts, and throughout Colorado, are able to implement the supports necessary for all students to meet the new Colorado Graduation Guidelines through the pathway in which they learn best Implementing next gen learning at scale is critical for Coalition Districts to meet Colorado’s new Graduation Guidelines. CLF and CDE’s call to action is to support them in doing so effectively and efficiently and to share this process with districts throughout Colorado in order to build state-wide capacity to meet the Graduation Guidelines

31. Particularly in the initial years of pilot implementation, a feedback loop is essential to inform expansion Theory of Action – Figure 4. Learning from Proof Points to Inform Expansion Initially enthusiasts are limited, but demonstrated success and shared lessons learned across Coalition will change mindsets and increase demand for next gen learning District leadership, CLF, and CDE engage with political and community stakeholders to build broader support for these changes and support additional tiers of schools which are interested in PL Pilot implementation among enthusiasts Aggregate learnings from pilots Pilots expandto additional schools Willing, Ready, and Able CLF will engage consumers (district and school leaders, teachers, parents and students) to share best practices and lessoned learned from pilots and to determine additional district supports and policies needed Pilots adjust implementation activities School design teams adjust practices based on lessons learned School and district leaders engage with teaching and learning teams to advocate for policy level changes needed to support PL Number of PL Schools Expand Feedback Loop Repeated Over Time 2015 2025

32. An iterative process of disruptive actions, centralized supports, and shared successes builds capacity for scale of next gen models Theory of Action – Figure 5. Building Capacity for Scale from Single School to District-Wide Implementation What causes districts to feel the need to revisit and shift vision? • Feedback from the education system consumers in the community about current experiences of students and capacities of graduates. (Thompson, Douglas, Boulder) • Underperformance on state system (A50) • Declining enrollment • Participating in the Colorado Integration Project • Participating in next generation professional learning • Engagement in personalized or blended learning initiative Community and staff prompted to establish a comprehensive next gen learning vision Create disruption in service of the next gen learning vision Support development of individual and group capacity to implement disruptive change Share successes and failures to scale good work and keep consumers engaged • Continue existing public accountability systems while also sharing qualitative results and leading indicators from schools in order to minimize the perceived risk associated with moving towards a whole-school NGL model • Facilitate networks of similar schools to create a system of mutual accountability and peer to peer feedback • Apply pressure to legislature and CDE to make any required policy changes • Synthesize learning, and use it to refine vision and identify next implementation steps • Complete in-depth resource use study (School by Design) • Redesign basic time, talent and school day experience in one or more schools (NCTL or Generation Schools) • Implement standards-based grading • Implement competency-based portfolio system • Implement competency-based pathways that offer flexible paces of matriculation. • Implement deep interest pathways with varying levels of integration into core academic curriculum • Provide school or district-based training in: • personalized learning • data teams • standards-based grading and competency-based instruction • use of key technology to support implementation • Participate in state-wide topical network(s) • Focus ed effectiveness process and coaching on the disruptive change implementation Foundational work to be done in anticipation and in advance of deep needs, including: consumer engagement (using or building structure to ensure that it is ongoing),building robust data systems; changes to financial planning and purchasing policies ,changes to HR policies, changes to state accountability and UIP…

33. Projected Phase II Budget: Expected Cost Categories School Design Activities Technical Assistance Personnel Costs Ancillary and Incremental Costs • Provides support to school teams to design their individual school PL plans • Common facilitated design process, including regular in-person and virtual design/capacity building events • Local and national school visits • Leading and Learning Labs • Funds TA providers to support school and district design processes • Coalition will contract with one or more TA providers to support school design, including: • Common facilitation of Phase II design process • Additional individual and/or common content expertise aligned to school design parameters/features • Coalition will explore one or more TA providers to support district systems design, which may include topics such as: • Technology systems sourcing • Resource allocation planning • Communications and stakeholder engagement • Coalition working team will approve TA expenditures • Provides support resources at districts and CLF to ensure high quality implementation of and support for the work • Personnel time (Districts) – Project Lead ($15K/district) • Personnel time (CLF) – NGL Director (45% of time) • Supports additional costs for the initiative • Resources library (e.g. case studies, common communications materials) • District indirect costs • CLF indirect / support costs • Office supplies 33

34. While the Coalition and DPS applications are independent, there are points of connection • In addition to adopting targets for learning growth and college readiness, DPS, CLF, CDE, and the Coalition districts will work together over the course of Phases II and III to determine the exact outcomes and metrics to support PL work and align with Graduation Guidelines, particularly for professional and entrepreneurial competencies Vision Alignment Alignment on Outcome Metrics Participation in Shared Learning • DPS’ Personalized Learning Pillars and the Coalition’s next gen learning vision both build on the Gates PL attributes and include academic, professional and entrepreneurial competencies • As CLF organizes knowledge sharing meetings for Coalition districts, DPS may also participate to share learnings and tools/artifacts from initial cohorts • Along with Coalition districts, DPS will work with CLF and CDE to flag any state policies or practices that are barriers to personalized learning • The Coalition and DPS will share ideas and connect to next gen experts through the Colorado ConnectEd social learning and knowledge platform • CLF and DPS project leaders will check in on a monthly basis to share learnings and process updates during Phase II and III 34

35. If both the Coalition and DPS are funded, synergies exist If both DPS and the Coalition are funded, there are opportunities to: • Explore resource efficiencies, e.g., where technical assistance needs are identified in common • Jointly identify state policies and practices that could be changed to support next gen learning • Leverage synergies to expand funding support for other needs, e.g., out-of-state site visits, technical assistance providers, support for district-level redesign 35