Report on the
Strength of
Partnership
Effectiveness:
School XYZ
MARCH 2016 Prepared By ROOT CAUSE Report on the Strength of Partnership Effectieness Sample School Summary of Assessment Root Cause, in partnership with the Boston Public Schools’ (BPS) Office of School-­‐Community Partnerships, developed and piloted a process to conduct assessments on the strength of partnerships between external partners providing services and the school. The assessment was conducted using the Effective Partnerships Framework that BPS and Root Cause developed using research-­‐based standards that measure how to build and maintain effective partnerships. The working BPS definition for Effective Partnerships is: An effective School-­‐Community partnership is an intentional collaboration between schools and service providers to provide learning opportunities and supports that positively impact holistic outcomes for students, families, and schools. There are seven Elements of Effective School-­‐Community Partnerships in the Boston Public Schools: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
Strategic Alignment Coordinated Services Distributive Leadership Shared Accountability Results Driven Effective Communication Sustainability Under each element, there are indicators – a total of 23 – assessed to understand whether the school and partners meet research-­‐based standards for building and maintaining effective partnerships. The scoring process is described in more detail in the Assessment Methodology section. The definitions of each indicator are below. Element Indicator Principal engages the voice of the school community (students, educators, families, and partners) to develop the vision for how the school hopes to best support students; the vision is communicated externally and drives partnership practice. Strategic Alignment Comprehensive process exists for using data on student, school and community needs to identify partner services needed. Rigorous selection process is in place to ensure new services are high quality, modeled on evidenced-­‐based research, and aligned with school needs. Coordinated Services Process exists to ensure alignment both across partners and between partners and the school. System exists to ensure partner services are known to staff and well integrated into the school. Process exists to ensure school staff and partners are able to refer students to the 1 Report on the Strength of Partnership Effectieness Tobin K-­‐8 School Element Indicator services that can best meet their individual needs. Distributive Leadership The school leader delegates authority around partnerships to others as appropriate, including school point of contacts identified for each partner. School staff and partners share ownership for decision-­‐making to strengthen inclusive and informed choices regarding partnerships. Agreements are in place that provide a scope of service and clearly defined roles and expectations for the school and partners. Shared Accountability The school and partners are accountable to achieve shared, mutually set goals. Resources are allocated appropriately to ensure the school and partners achieve their shared goals. Agreements are in place that provide scope of service and clearly defined roles, expectations, and shared accountability. School and partners use data to continuously evaluate achievement of, or progress towards, shared, mutually set goals. Results Driven A process exists to analyze the link between student needs and the impact of the services provided by partners. A process exists to enable partners to continuously improve using student data and professional development feedback. There are formal meetings throughout the school year during which the school and partners regularly talk about the overall state of the partnership. Communication between school and partners is based on transparency and trust. Effective Communication is well facilitated between partners and all relevant stakeholders Communication at the school, including families. Two-­‐way communication and information sharing between school and partners, and among partners, are in place. School/partner accomplishments are celebrated as a community. School and partners utilize blended funding sources, including non-­‐traditional or alternative sources. Sustainability Strong financial management and planning exists to support partnerships in the school. Information about the impact and value of partnerships and partner services are 2 Report on the Strength of Partnership Effectieness Sample School Element Indicator shared with key stakeholders and funders. Capacity exists to meet student needs if partnership resources decrease. Process is in place to ensure sustainability of partnerships during periods of transition. Participants in the Partnership Effectiveness Assessment at School XYZ included the following: School Interview • Principal XYZ Participating Partners • Interviewed o Partner A o Partner B • Completed a Survey o Partner C o Partner D o Partner E o Partner F Assessment Methodology Partners at the school were invited to participate in the interview or complete the survey; not all partners participated. A sample of participating partners were selected to for a 90-­‐minute interview, and the remaining partners provided their input via an online survey. The questions asked in the interview and through the survey were exactly the same. The school’s input was gathered via a 2-­‐hour interview with the principal. All of the data gathered from partners and the school during the assessment was analyzed to determine if the partners collectively, and the school individually, met the standards for a given indicator. Key features of the analysis are bulleted below, and detailed results are outlined by element in each of the Detailed Findings from Assessment sections that follow. Scoring Questions •
The partner score for each question is the number of positive responses from partners as a percentage of the total number of partners surveyed. Scores by individual partners are not listed in the report to protect their anonymity. o See Question Score column in the blue Detailed Findings partner tables. 3 Report on the Strength of Partnership Effectieness Tobin K-­‐8 School •
The school score for each question is pass/fail based on whether or not the school gave a positive response. o See Question Score column in the orange Detailed Findings school tables. Scoring Indicators •
•
•
In order to meet the standards for a given indicator the school or individual partners had to give a positive response in 60% or more of each set of questions associated with that indicator. The partner score for each indicator is the number of individual partners who met the standards for an indicator (i.e. gave a positive response in 60% or more of associated questions) as a percentage of the total number of partners surveyed. o See Indicator Score in the blue Detailed Findings partner tables. The school score for each indicator is the number of questions answered positively out of total number of questions answered for each indicator. o See Indicator Score in the orange Detailed Findings school tables. Scoring Elements •
The partner and school scores for each element are based on the average of associated indicator scores. Figure 1 below illustrates the classification of red, yellow, or green given to each element based on that score. Example For the first Strategic Alignment indicator (“Principal engages the voice of the school community…”), there were five related questions in the assessment. The number of partners that provided a positive answer to each of these questions ranged from 2 to 10 out of a possible 12. In total, 10 of the 12 partners gave an positive answer to at least 3 of 5 of these questions, or 60%. Therefore, 10 partners were counted as meeting this indicator. For each of the three indicators associated with strategic alignment, the respective scores of 10, 8, and 6 out of 12 partners were counted as meeting the indicator. This translates to an average indicator score of 8/12, or a 67% score for the element. 4 Report on the Strength of Partnership Effectieness Sample School Figure 1
Red less than 59% average among indicator scores Yellow 60-­‐79% average among indicator scores Green 80-­‐100% average among indicator scores Summary of Results by Element Firgure 2 summarizes the scores that the Tobin K-­‐8 School and school-­‐based partners that participated in the assessment received. The partner score is based on the collective indicator scores of all 12 participating partners, and the process for developing that score is described in greater detail in the previous section, “Assessment Methodology.” Figure 3 provides a higher level way of comparing school and partner scores by providing the overall ranking of each element based on the red, yellow, green classification system described in Figure 1. Figure 2 Average Percentage of Indicators Met Per Element 100 90 87 80 93 Percentage 70 60 79 75 64 67 50 68 67 60 61 63 68 66 56 40 30 20 10 0 Strategic Alignment Coordinated Services Distributed Shared Results Driven EffecIve Sustainability Leadership Accountability CommunicaIon Elements School Data Partner Data 5 Report on the Strength of Partnership Effectieness Tobin K-­‐8 School Figure 3 Strategic Alignment Strategic Alignment Coordinated Services Sustainability Coordinated Services Sustainability School XYZ Element Scores School XYZ Partner Element Scores Distribuhve Leadership Effechve Communicahon Effechve Communicahon Distribuhve Leadership Shared Accountability Results Driven Shared Accountability Results Driven Summary of Results by Indicator The following charts detail strengths and challenges based on the assessment of the school and participating partners. The school and participating partners were asked similar questions in the assessment; the data received from the partners is shown in aggregate throughout the report. Strategic Alignment Percentage of QuesIons Met per Indicator 0 Voice of School 83 Process for Using Data 67 67 SelecIon Process 67 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 71 70 80 90 100 Percentage School Data Partner Data Strategic Alignment Strengths • 6 Challenges • Report on the Strength of Partnership Effectieness Sample School Coordinated Services Percentage of QuesIons Met per Indicator 83 Partner Alignment Partner IntegraIon 45 40 Student Referral 76 52 0 10 20 30 88 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage School Data Partner Data Coordinated Services Strengths • Challenges • DistribuIve Leadership Percentage of QuesIons Met per Indicator Staff Capacity (School Only) 99 90 Delegates Authority 97 84 83 Decision Making 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage School Data Partner Data Distributive Leadership Strengths • Challenges • 7 Report on the Strength of Partnership Effectieness Tobin K-­‐8 School Shared Accountability Percentage of QuesIons Met per Indicator 68 70 Mutual Goals Resources 90 38 54 Formal Agreements 0 10 20 30 40 74 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage School Data Partner Data Shared Accountability Strengths Challenges • • Results Driven Percentage of QuesIons Met per Indicator Use of Data 84 65 Students Needs and Impact 56 25 84 ConInuous Improvement 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 95 90 100 Percentage School Data Partner Data Results Driven Strengths • 8 Challenges • Report on the Strength of Partnership Effectieness Sample School EffecIve CommunicaIon Percentage of QuesIons Met per Indicator Formal MeeIngs 63 25 Transparency and Trust 67 Well-­‐facilitated CommunicaIon (Partner Only) 67 75 93 47 Two-­‐way CommunicaIon 0 10 20 30 96 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage School Data Partner Data Effective Communication Strengths • Challenges • Sustainability Percentage of QuesIons Met per Indicator Blended Funding Sources 50 Financial Management 50 98 97 Impact/Value of Partnerships (Partner Only) 59 39 Decreasing Resources 47 84 Sustainability of Partnership 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 94 90 100 Percentage School Data Partner Data Sustainability Strengths Challenges • 9 Report on the Strength of Partnership Effectieness Tobin K-­‐8 School EXAMPLE: Detailed Findings from Assessment: Strategic Alignment Shown below are the detailed findings, by indicator, from the assessment for the Strategic Alignment element. The blue table shows the aggregate results from the participating partners; the orange table shows the results from the school. •
•
•
The question score is the number of partners with a positive response out of total number of partners. The indicator score is the number of partners who met the standards for the indicator by providing positive responses in 60% or more of the associated questions. The element score is the average of the indicator scores. Strategic Alignment
Element Score: 67%
Indicator
Principal engages the voice of the school community (students, educators, families, partners) to develop the vision for the school; the vision is communicated externally and drives partnership practice. Comprehensive process exists for using data on student, school and community needs to identify partners. Rigorous selection process is in place to ensure programs are high quality, modeled on evidenced-­‐based research, and aligned with school needs. 10 Indicat
or
Score
Question
4/6 Has school leadership shared the Quality School Plan with your program? Does the school keep your program updated on any modifications or updates to the Quality School Plan? Was the vision for the school shared with you? Do you feel you fit into the school vision? Can you describe how your program fits into the school vision? Questio
n Score
2/6 2/6 5/6 4/6 4/6 3/6 How do you ensure your programming is addressing school priorities and student needs? 3/6 5/6 What was the vetting and selection process that you went through to become a partner at the school? 5/6 Report on the Strength of Partnership Effectieness Sample School The question score is pass/fail based on whether the school gave a positive response; the indicator score is based on the percentage of questions with positive responses. Strategic Alignment – School Data
Element Score: 64%
Indicator
Principal engages the voice of the school community (students, educators, families, partners) to develop the vision for the school; the vision is communicated externally and drives partnership practice. Comprehensive process exists for using data on student, school and community needs to identify partners. Rigorous selection process is in place to ensure programs are high quality, modeled on evidenced-­‐based research, and aligned with school needs. Indicat
or
Score
5/7 2/3 0/1 Question
Does the school have a formal, written vision? Has the School Quality Plan been shared with partners? Does that vision include a section/element on the role of partners? How were partners incorporated into the school vision? How was stakeholder input gathered when developing the partner section/element of the school vision? How were school priorities and student needs shared with partners? How was the vision communicated to the partners? How were gaps in existing school services identified that partners could fill? Does the school use data on student needs and school priorities to help identify potential partners? Questio
n Score
1/1 1/1 0/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 0/1 1/1 1/1 What type of data does the school use? 0/1 Is there specific criteria prospective partners must meet in order to partner with the school (e.g., number of students they serve, experience providing the proposed programming, evidence that the model is high quality, etc.)? 0/1 11