Ohio High School Transformation Initiative

September 30, 2003

Denise A. Shelton
Program Officer, School Improvement
KnowledgeWorks Foundation
500 South Front Street, Suite 980
Columbus, OH 43215

Dear Denise:

Attached, as promised, is a first-pass proposal for your review. As agreed, we have provided a preliminary work plan and budget to support the full participation of approximately 50 student leaders who will be involved in the December Leadership Institute.

We hope that you will consider this a work in progress. Our goal in preparing the proposal is to build on the thinking you shared with us in late August about both the purpose of and the envisioned process for involving students in the meeting. Our goal in preparing the budget is to outline what we believe it would take to provide an ideal level of support to students and teams before, during and after the conference in order to maximize the role of students in the design work. The full budget for the proposed work is $22,400. Obviously, both the proposed tasks and the proposed budget are up for discussion. The commitment to provide light but ongoing support to student leaders requires not only a larger funding commitment, but a larger organizational commitment than what may currently be envisioned.

We look forward to talking with you about the proposal. You should know that nearly our entire program team will be out of the office with only limited e-mail connection between September 29th and October 3rd. We are facilitating the kick-off meeting for the 10 district-community learning teams that have received grants to create long-term strategies for high school improvement in California.

If you would like to set up a meeting to talk about the proposal and budget before we return to the office, please contact Ian Coleman, Karen’s Executive Assistant, at 202-207-3327 or ian@forumforyouthinvestment.org.

Thank you again for the opportunity to submit this proposal. We look forward to working with you on this project and hope that it will lead to a lively learning partnership between our two organizations. There is so much to learn in this business!

Sincerely,

Karen J. Pittman Nicole Yohalem
Executive Director Co-Director of Programs

Ohio High School Transformation Initiative:
Proposal to Engage and Support Student Leaders
Submitted by The Forum for Youth Investment
To The KnowledgeWorks Foundation
September 2003

Background
“We are young adults. We can give you respect. We are able to understand the issues. We can think for ourselves. It’s our education. If we have a say, it will make a difference”
Bertha Rodriguez, Students for Justice, Denver, CO

Students, for a variety of reasons, are often the last group to be engaged in school transformation efforts even though they are clearly seen as the beneficiaries of these efforts. Schools are not the only organizations that neglect to involve their customers in redesign efforts, but they are among the most interesting. In engaging students, their too little, too late efforts are, on the surface, difficult to explain given that a) their customers are with them every day, and b) their primary business is not only to convey knowledge but to increase students’ ability and experience with solving problems, working in groups and engaging in democratic processes.

Sustained progress to improve educational policies and programs at the classroom, building, district and community levels cannot be made without engaging education’s primary consumers – young people – in the process. For that engagement to be meaningful and sustained, young people should be engaged in the shaping of beliefs about the purpose and nature of education and the development and implementation of strategies for transforming school and community learning opportunities.

Meaningful youth engagement involves both recognizing the strengths youth bring to the learning process and supporting the deliberate practice of those strengths by youth. According to Marge Hiller of the Bridgeport Public Education Fund, “I think we really miss the boat when we don’t involve students in all the policy work around schools. They are the ones there every day. Every time we ask students anything their answers are amazing; they can put their finger on things more accurately than anyone else in the system.”

The basic strategies for engaging youth in educational change are four-fold (see Diagram 1). The first two are strategies to engage young people in the learning process itself, both for themselves and in support roles for their peers’ learning. The first of these two strategies includes engaging young people in project-based and active learning approaches. The second is demonstrated by such initiatives as the San Francisco Peer Mentors program which engages young people as mentors, tutors and support persons to their peers. The third strategy involves engaging young people in the community and in civic life through service-learning and other such initiatives.

But efforts to engage youth should not be limited to strengthening their connections to their own learning process, to that of their peers, or increasing civic participation. Efforts to improve educational opportunities at the building, district, community, state and national levels should include well thought out strategies for involving young people. Youth need clear opportunities to share responsibility for school and community reform processes designed to improve achievement. Though this fourth strategy is far less prevalent and has fewer demonstrations of high-quality implementation, it is increasingly emerging as a strategy in district-level partnerships, initiatives and programming.

Youth engagement involves four basic strategies…

While, in some contexts, youth engagement strategies are critical enough to stand alone as a set of interventions, we have found that many of the most effective models frame youth engagement as a lens through which each of a larger initiative’s core interventions and strategies are considered rather than as a “stand-alone” effort. In the context of the Ohio High School Transformation Initiative (OHSTI), instead of attaching an eighth strategy to the seven already outlined in Bernhardt’s Continua for Continuous School Improvement, we urge that student engagement be the lens through which to understand and plan how and why the initiative might engage young people in each of the strategies outlined in the Bernhardt framework. We further suggest that student engagement strategies only be developed after completing an analysis of the roles outlined for students in each of the identified seven areas. Without this analysis and discussion, it is highly likely that an “adding an eighth area” would outline ways that students can be engaged that are good for students, but not integral to school transformation.

Summaries and Observations of the OHSTI Process to Date
These observations and summaries are offered with a huge caveat: The Forum has not met with or interviewed any of the participating schools and has only done a limited review of materials and agendas. The observations made could be off base. If so, we apologize. We expect that, even if they are inaccurate, they will be useful in helping the Foundation understand the Forum’s approach to engaging youth in educational change.

Student representation. We understand that only a few leadership teams have had student representation. Student leadership, to the extent that it has been encouraged, has been fostered at the building level. The students coming to the December Leadership Institute have been identified as leaders in their schools. We do not know if they have had formal or informal roles in the OHSTI planning process to date.

Student roles in planning and implementation. Schools participating in the OHSTI have created (or are in the process of creating) individualized plans in seven areas:

§ Information and analysis,
§ Student achievement,
§ quality planning,
§ professional development,
§ leadership,
§ partnership development,
§ continuous improvement and evaluation.

Again, we would argue that students can and should be actively engaged in the planning and implementation work in each of the seven continuous improvement areas. A quick review of the statements included in Bernhardt’s Continuous Improvement Continua that were provided to all participating districts shows only limited roles for students. These roles are pulled out and presented in Table 1. For the purposes of discussion, we also include other possible roles students could play.

One very straightforward way to engage students would be to engage the students coming to the meeting in a series of discussions about how students have been and could be engaged in the seven improvement areas. If the student leaders coming to the meeting have not had the opportunity to engage with the tools or work with the leadership team around these topics before coming to the meeting, extra time will have to be built into the agenda to introduce the concepts.

The institute proposal that follows builds on this idea, based on the assumption that these seven elements are and will continue to be central themes in the December and April Institutes and in the planning and implementation processes undertaken in each school.

TABLE 1 Language from Bernhardt’s Continuous Improvement Guide Example of Specific Related & Other Youth Roles National Engagement Examples
Information & Analysis

Level 3: “School collects data on student, teacher, parent needs…shares with staff [not students ].
Level 5: “Teachers engage students in gathering information on their own performance.” § Students participate in regular student forums for evaluating the school itself and analyzing student data against adult-generated data.
§ Students are a part of collecting data through surveys, focus groups.
§ Near the completion of major classroom projects, students are regularly engaged to fill out a form to evaluate their own work. Self-assessments are analyzed against other assessments in an ongoing way. In Sacramento, students were trained to develop, conduct and analyze surveys on students opinions about learning, school climate, support and instruction. Students found patterns in students’ perceptions and feelings around issues such as lack of challenge and engagement and the need for more and better qualified counselors. The information generated by students was fed into a set of recommendations to the District for further action.
Student Achievement Level 3: “Student feedback and analysis of achievement data are used in conjunction with implementation and support strategies.”
Level 5: “Students and teachers conduct self-assessments to continuously improve performance…” § Students participate in structured, supported formats to give feedback to one another on academic performance (e.g. Writing Workshops)
§ Students learn about and are engaged in understanding the achievement gap in their school/district and discuss ways to narrow it. Through a program called Strategies of Successful Students, Peer Resources in San Francisco works with schools to engage academically successful students to support their peers in improving their grades, learning specific academic material, and improving study strategies and skills. Each school adapts the program to meet their particular needs with the broader goal of engaging students to support their peers.
Quality Planning Level 2: “School community (indirect mention of students) begins continuous improvement planning efforts…” § A cross-section of students participate on the school improvement team.
§ The student government has an active and empowered role in planning discussion and decision- making on possible changes within the school; they become the body for soliciting student feedback on changes in school policy, structure or environment – actively engaging input from all students. During the planning phase of Sacramento’s involvement in the Carnegie Corporation’s Schools for a New Society Initiative, students’ involvement in the planning process included establishing effective student advisory councils at the district and site levels coordinated with broad student representation on district and site decision-making teams. The Board created policies to support and facilitate youth leadership development so that youth voice could have equal footing with adult perspectives.
Professional Development No mention of students. § In a school improvement process related to accreditation, structured ways for students to participate in, facilitate, and/or give feedback at staff in-services.
§ Peer educators from local issue-focused community organizations (e.g. young people serving as peer facilitators in Planned Parenthood or a local conflict resolution organization) facilitate informational presentations to staff, providing tools for addressing important school issues with some youth perspective. When the district changed to block schedules in 1997-1998, teachers at Simon Gratz High School were struggling to engage students in the new, longer class periods. Students involved in the Philadelphia Student Union, a citywide organization started in 1995 for high school students in Philadelphia public schools, opened a dialogue with the faculty. As a result of that dialogue, students planned and ran a professional development workshop for their teachers to identify which approaches best held their interest in challenging work. Students also gained two seats on a new faculty committee charged with bringing about professional development that better addressed the actual learning needs of teachers and students.

Leadership Level 3: “Leadership [only indirect mention of students] seeks inclusion of all school sectors…” “Everyone is kept informed.”
Level 5: “A strong continuous improvement structure is set into place that allows for input from all sectors.” “Leadership team has systematic interactions and involvement with…students about the school’s direction.” § Students are involved throughout the improvement structure, including school improvement committees and planning teams related to accreditation processes, district goals, state mandates, etc. As part of a school reform process at Federal Hocking High School in Columbus, students participated in committees charged with addressing the major reform themes of the school, including school size and the lack of time between students and faculty to engage and build relationships. A peer-appointed student government was charged with working directly with the principal on projects such as the student handbook and student appointments to teacher selection committees.
Partnership Development No mention of students. § Students have structured opportunities to explore, provide suggestions for, and assist in selection of partnerships.
§ Schools develop mechanisms to allow for partnerships to emerge from classroom-based initiatives and student projects. In the face of a declining local economy, students in Lubec, Maine, worked in partnership with teachers and community members to turn an abandoned water treatment facility into a state-of-the art aquaculture center. With the support of a teacher-facilitator coordinating the project, students play an integral role in maintaining the aquaculture business, raising trout and salmon for marketing and partnering with numerous businesses, farmers, and public authorities to maintain a viable business that has provided jobs and inspired hope in this small rural community.

Continuous Improvement & Evaluation Level 5: “Teachers continuously improve the appropriateness and effectiveness of instructional strategies based on student feedback and performance.” § Students participate on leadership team(s) or group(s) monitoring continuous improvement; evaluation has some component that is student- advised and/or student-led. Project 540 in Buffalo, New York, trains young people to facilitate focused conversations with their peers around school climate, classroom experiences and instruction, and staff-student relations. These student facilitators are supported to pull together and arrange themes, develop action plans, and present these plans to school and district decision-making bodies. Student-generated plans are fed back into ongoing improvement plans.

Student Learning Institute: Proposed Purpose and Agenda.

Purpose:
To create a positive, provocative experience for approximately 50 students that helps them affirm their roles in OHSTI and identify strategies for engaging other students in the process.

Objectives:
a) deepen their understanding of the goals and strategies of OHSTI,
b) articulate their visions of student success and of what they need to be successful,
c) identify and discuss specific ways in which they and other students could be engaged in addressing the seven key elements,
d) identify specific strategies for student engagement in providing input (e.g. surveys, focus groups, feedback loops), influencing decisions (e.g., representation, issue advocacy, parent outreach, organizing), implementing changes (e.g. increased student roles),
e) surface a few key issues or ideas they would like to share with the full Institute about school transformation and student engagement,
f) strengthen their relationships with their leadership teams,
g) discuss (if appropriate) options for connecting after the Institute,
h) prioritize the types of information and resources that would be useful to them as student leaders and identify some basic sources they can access.

Preparation Work:

§ Forum staff arrange informal discussion with students from Shaw High School in East Cleveland District (recommended school) to get a sense of their understanding of OHSTI, learn how they have been engaged in the process, and solicit ideas for working with student leaders.
§ Forum staff send packets to identified student leaders from each school with simple questionnaire and short reading materials. Forum staff contact a student or two from each school (or a representative set of schools) to get some level of student feedback and input on meeting purposes, agenda and goals and to gain a broad sense of student perspectives and participation already in place leading up to the Institute.
§ Conference calls are set for mid-November at the latest to ensure time to prepare materials for Institute.
§ Forum works with KnowledgeWorks to create a short “student engagement” packet to be sent to adult Institute participants. Could potentially include a version of the above chart (Table 1) to spark discussion among the leadership team.
§ Materials are prepared based on feedback from students. Materials will include examples of student engagement strategies in use at other high schools as well as worksheets for small group sessions.

Institute Work Blocks:
(These will be worked into agenda form once we have a sense of how/when the students will join the adults).
§ Time apart from adults. Day 1. Students will have 4-5 hours to work on their own on Day 1 (work plan is based on objectives, see objectives a – h above). Students work as full group to do basic work (a-b), break into small groups to address objectives (c) and (d). Come back together to create basic ideas list for objectives (e) that they will take into leadership teams.
§ Time with leadership teams. Day 2. Students work with adults as part of the leadership teams for at least a part of Day 2. Prep work on Day 1 should get them ready for Day 2 work. Forum will need to coordinate with KnowledgeWorks planners. Ideally, there will be an opportunity for them to share Day 1 take-aways with their team.
§ Time apart from adults. Day 2. Students have 2-3 hours to work on their own again after work with leadership teams. Will discuss feedback from leadership groups, delve deeper into the seven key elements to discuss specific student engagement strategies, identify resources/information/training needed and discuss options for staying connected. (Ideally, KnowledgeWorks will have a set of options available – e.g. listserv, website, cluster meetings, conference calls).
§ Quick adult engagement exercise(s) On Day 1, students select a simple assignment (e.g. interview question) that will help them interact with at least 2 adults (at least one from their team, one from another school). Student team will compile answers to present at different points in agenda.
§ Time with full group. Students should have informal opportunities to be with the full group – meals, receptions, keynotes.
§ Presentations to the full group. Students should also have an opportunity or a series of short opportunities to present their ideas to the full group. This could be done as a series of commercials at full gatherings (5-15 minute presentations or interactive exercises that make a point about student engagement). It could also be a student panel, talk show style, in which a subset of students (volunteers or nominees from peers) relay issues/ideas raised during the time apart to the full group and share experiences.
§ Forum session with adults. We strongly suggest that at least one hour of the adult agenda be set aside for a discussion of student engagement strategies and expectations with the leadership teams, facilitated by Forum staff. This could be done in conjunction with a student panel (i.e. it could follow), or separately. This session could also be held just for School Coaches.

Follow-up.
It was not clear when we talked whether the students coming in December will return again for the April Institute or, if they are not returning, what relationship they will have with those who come (e.g., a different member of a core student leadership team will come to represent the team). We believe that some type of follow-up will be important – it could be optional conference calls or on-line discussions.

Evaluation
It is not realistic to think that young people will actually make measurable skill-development gains during this institute. The time is too short. If the same young people return to the second institute, their time could be spent in workshops that address specific skills needed (e.g., survey data analysis or meeting facilitation). However, it is realistic to expect that a) progress will be made against the objectives listed above, b) students will leave more confident of their ability to make a difference and to engage other students, and c) if the integration with adults sessions occurs along the lines we’ve suggested, adults will leave more aware of the importance of involving young people and specific strategies for doing so.

Staffing and Budget

The full budget for the proposed work is $22,400. Staffing and budget requirements for the specific areas of work are as follows:

Preparation
§ Five days staff time for Senior Program Associate to coordinate and participate in pre-meeting conference calls and sessions, prepare institute materials and session formats, co-facilitate development of an agenda, and coordinate meeting logistics on behalf of the Forum;
§ Two days time for Co-director to participate in pre-meeting calls, assist in development of an agenda, support preparation of institute materials and session formats, and oversee the proposed work;
§ One and one-half days time for Executive Team Officer (Karen Pittman or Merita Irby) to participate in pre-meeting conference calls; shape the Forum’s role in the institute and solidify core frames, tools, and exercise; and support preparation of Institute materials and session formats.
§ Note: Our understanding is that travel costs would be directly reimbursed by the KnowledgeWorks Foundation. We anticipate airfare and hotel for one staff person to participate in a pre-meeting with East Cleveland High School.
8.5 program staff days $7000
4 Conference calls 1300
Other programmatic/operational support 2200

TOTAL $10,500

Institute Facilitation
§ Two days staff time for three Forum staff (one Executive Team Officer; two other Forum staff)
§ Meeting materials for 50 young people and 1 staff person per school. Smaller packet of materials for adult participants.
§ Note: Our understanding is that travel costs would be directly reimbursed by the KnowledgeWorks Foundation. We anticipate airfare, ground transportation, two nights of hotel plus meals for the three staff members participating in the Institute.
6 Program staff days $5650
Meeting Materials 2000
Other programmatic/operational support 1750
$9400

Institute Followup
§ One days staff time for Senior Program Associate to coordinate followup, including supporting a minimal level of connections among participants.
§ One half day each of Co-director and Executive Team Officer to debrief with Senior Program Associate and KnowledgeWorks staff and make recommendations for next steps.
2 Program staff days $1900
Other programmatic/operational support 600
$2500