Author Archives: Lina Bankert and Ali Fuller

The Power of Partnerships: Supporting Districts in Postsecondary Success

As elevated in our recent report and tipsheet series, school districts across the country are beginning to be more proactive in supporting K-12 students to achieve postsecondary success.

But what happens if districts don’t have capacity to develop a strategic vision and then actually offer college advising support? In these cases, we’ve identified concrete roles that funders and college access organizations can play. With the support of these external partners, districts can accelerate their progress towards supporting all students on their paths to postsecondary success. Cover of "Equitable Postsecondary Advising Systems Expanding access to help close the degree divide" tip sheet for districts, by Bellwether Education Partners June 2020

KIPP*, a high-performing national charter network, has always supported its students on their journey to college. In 2008, KIPP launched “KIPP Through College” to provide more structured and intensive support for students to increase the likelihood of postsecondary success. The model helps students to decide what colleges are the best fit for them using a user-friendly online match tool that leverages data and logic to build a list of colleges and universities for a student to apply to. In addition, KIPP has defined a set of milestones to track and measure success (e.g., FAFSA completion). As a result: in 2018, 80% of KIPP graduates enrolled in college, compared to the national average of 66% and the low-income student average of 46%. 

Recognizing that KIPP had a successful approach, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation* provided a grant for KIPP to adapt their model for three urban districts who were eager to prioritize college advising: Miami-Dade County Public Schools, New York City Department of Education, and Newark Unified School District. 

KIPP helped the three districts set a vision with milestones, customized their “match and fit” framework and online tool, and conducted in-person training and virtual coaching to support implementation. Early results are promising, and uptake has been strong: all three districts adopted KIPP’s approach after the 18-month program. KIPP is expanding the program to 13 additional schools in New York and 9 additional schools in Miami, as well as offering a summer training for staff using KIPP’s approach.

We profiled KIPP, and other organizations, districts, and intermediaries doing great work to support students on their postsecondary journeys, in our recent study on the postsecondary support landscape. Read it here.

*Former client/funder of Bellwether. We maintained full editorial control of this post.

Applications Open for 3 Federal Grants: Tips From Bellwether

In the past few days, three major education-related federal grants have opened their application processes.

The Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) Grant Program, the Teacher and School Leader (TSL) Incentive Grants, and the Education Innovation and Research (EIR) Fund collectively offer approximately $266 million in funding to eligible education entities. (All three currently list a June 2020 application deadline.)

Teachers at Skyline High School meet with community partners to plan work-based learning opportunities for students.

Photo by Allison Shelley/The Verbatim Agency for American Education: Images of Teachers and Students in Action

These programs closely align with Bellwether’s mission of supporting underserved students: 

  • SEED: “Increase the number of highly effective educators by supporting […] practices that prepare, develop, or enhance the skills of educators”
  • TSL: “Develop, implement, improve, or expand comprehensive Performance-Based Compensation Systems or Human Capital Management Systems for teachers, principals, and other school leaders […] especially [those] who […] close the achievement gap between high- and low-performing students”
  • EIR: “Create, develop, implement, replicate, or take to scale entrepreneurial, evidence-based, field-initiated innovations to improve student achievement and attainment for high-need students; and rigorously evaluate such innovations”

While these grants require complex applications and can be highly competitive, Bellwether is here to help. Since 2010, we have successfully partnered with many organizations in their successful bids for federal grants. These include the following organizations, some of which have won several times with our support: Harmony Public Schools, IDEA Public Schools, Louisiana Department of Education, National Math and Science Initiative, New Schools for New Orleans, RePublic Schools, Rhode Island Department of Education, and Tennessee Department of Education.

Back in 2016, I shared a series of tips on writing a successful federal education grant application, so we’re re-upping that conversation today.

But first, a few 2020 additions to our 2016 thoughts:

First, it is worth naming that we are navigating through highly uncertain times precipitated by the COVID-19 crisis. Leaders across the sector are urgently attending to foundational needs and may see a grant application as yet another item on top of an already packed to-do list. We empathize — and also believe that now is an opportune moment for organizations to think ahead and consider how to evolve to address changing needs, either by accelerating existing work or by pursuing a bold new innovation.

Second, don’t feel like you have to go it alone. Many strong grant proposals are developed in partnership. We encourage organizations to have conversations early on with potential partners who can bring particular expertise or serve as a “test lab” for an initiative. (My colleague Allison Crean Davis will write a companion post tomorrow about the evaluation capabilities needed for a winning grant — and how we can support on that front.)

Finally, even if your application does not rise to the top, consider yourself a winner. Grant development can help you get clarity on where you’re headed and highlight gaps that you need to close before taking on a big new initiative. Going through the process of identifying strengths and opportunities can be just as valuable as actually acing the competition. Continue reading

Is Your School Network Model “Tight” or “Loose”?

This is the fourth blog post in our #SGInstitute series, led by our Strategic Advising practice on lessons learned from advising schools, networks, and districts on growth and expansion.

One of my favorite conversations to have with growing school networks is about the role that the central office should play. How “tight” or “loose” will the relationship be between the network office and the campuses? “Tight” systems, processes, structures, and practices are centralized and/or standardized, meaning decisions about instruction, culture, and operations are made at the network level, with varying degrees of input from schools. “Loose” ones are decentralized and/or contextualized, meaning individual campuses can make their own decisions, often leading to school environments that look and feel completely distinct.

road signs with word "Custom" and an arrow pointing to the left, and below it a sign reading "Standard" and pointing to the right, word standard is circled in redIn a tight network, you’d expect to walk into two fourth-grade classrooms on two different campuses and see a lot of commonalities: set up of physical space, instructional delivery, cultural norms, and pace of lessons. In a loose network, you’d experience more variation. Perhaps shared values and the network focus, like STEM, are explicit, but one school might elevate biomedical engineering and another robotics. The personalities of the adults in the building – both the school leaders and the teachers – shine through in how instruction is delivered: for example, how students show appreciation for each other, or how work stations are set up in the classroom.

It’s important to note that there is no judgment implicit in being tight or loose! We have seen exceptional networks at both ends of the spectrum. One high-performing network (and a Broad Prize winner) designed itself to be tight for two primary reasons. First, due to the huge geographic area its schools covered, there were fewer opportunities for in-person collaboration. Second, because of the network’s rapid expansion and teacher demographics, with high numbers of new teachers and school leaders, more structure and scaffolding was put in place so as not to recreate the wheel on content each time. The network office focused on developing high-quality curriculum and resources for teachers and school leaders to use and implement with fidelity, and it had a large and strong team creating content and trainings.

On the flip side, another Broad Prize winner opted to give school leaders room to innovate, and therefore put a big premium on recruiting and onboarding top-notch talent. Leaders had access to shared resources such as technology, data management, and professional development from the network, but had ultimate control over their instructional models, so long as they produced results. Campuses also had more budgeting autonomies, with considerable discretion around managing on-site resources and incentives for local program development.

Many network leaders default to wanting tighter control, in the name of consistency and replicating a model that has seen success. While we’ve seen this play out well, there are a few notes of caution. As the tightness of control increases, networks typically need: Continue reading

What Does Expansion Look Like? Three Lessons From Our Strategic Growth Institute

This is the second blog post in our #SGInstitute series, led by our Strategic Advising practice on lessons learned from advising schools, networks, and districts on growth and expansion. Next up in the series: how do leaders know they are ready to take the next step?

We recently launched our tenth Strategic Growth Institute cohort here at Bellwether. Our cohort work brings us together with charter and district leaders who are actively thinking about expanding their impact by adding new seats or campuses. When asked “why grow your school or model?”, our school partners commonly remark that they’re already serving students and communities well (and often far better than other options), and that their model is in high demand. Occasionally, school leaders want to move quickly to take advantage of unique landscape conditions that might not last forever (a charter- or innovation-friendly administration, for example).

But a second question — “what does expansion look like?” — yields a broader range of answers. Getting clear on what constitutes success is critically important because it shapes how a school leader and stakeholders will prioritize strategic decisions for years to come. A school seeking to replicate its model and grow from one campus to three will be on a very different path from a school that seeks to be a “teaching hospital” and codify its practices to share with other operators. Many choices, including culture development, organizational structure, talent philosophy, and community engagement, are fundamentally impacted by the direction the school (often in partnership with a district or network) wants to head.

We offer school leaders three broad questions as they think about which vision or impact model is right for them: Continue reading

Defining the “Pipeline” in “Teacher and Leader Pipelines”

This post is part of a week-long series about educator and leader pipelines. Read the rest of the series here.

Talk of teacher and leader pipelines has been a mainstay in our field. “We need to grow high-quality, diverse pipelines of new teachers.” “We need to build a pipeline of future leaders from our current pool of teachers.” But what exactly is a pipeline? Where does it start, and where does it end? Our Bellwether team set out to find a simple visual answer to these questions and didn’t find a comprehensive solution, so we created our own. If you’ve seen something great and are willing to share, please email me.

As we see it, a teacher pipeline begins with supply: new teachers entering the field, prepared through both traditional and alternative programs. Once teachers are “in,” they head into the development stage, as they are recruited and selected into schools and systems, onboarded to ensure at least basic proficiency in the classroom, and then continuously developed to deepen effectiveness and enable retention. Continue reading