In my first post about the Sixth National Reengagement Plus! Convening in Philadelphia on March 19-20, 2018, I discussed the progress that Philadelphia has made in better serving opportunity youth. Today, I am widening the lens to reflect on what Philadelphia can teach us about systems change writ large.
These themes, drawn from various plenary and breakout discussions during the conference, align with what Equal Measure has learned from years of tracking and evaluating a variety of systems change efforts. Such efforts include the Aspen Forum for Community Solutions’ Opportunity Youth Forum and the James Irvine Foundation’s Linked Learning Regional Hubs of Excellence, which I have worked on and which elevate the concept of network-building in service of a shared goal. 1
Leading and collaborating.
One of the strongest themes of the convening was the importance of systems leaders working together to better understand how to support the success of the youth whom they serve. According to Christina Grant, assistant superintendent of the Opportunity Network and the Innovation Network at the School District of Philadelphia (SDP), “None of the [reengagement] work is possible without alignment with the mayor, superintendent, and president of the community college.” These individuals form the Project U-Turn executive leadership team and have worked together over several years to strengthen relationships and align their strategies. Department of Human Services Commissioner Cynthia Figueroa asserted that the depth of relationships across systems is a strong indicator of how well the systems are working to serve youth. She suggests that leaders examine how their systemic priorities can feed into other systems. Similarly, Brendan Conlin of Congreso de Latinos Unidos talked about how co-design rather than acting in isolation leads to policy and practice change that more effectively reaches students. Superintendent William Hite echoed that deep collaboration among organizations keeps leaders focused on the best interests of the youth they serve. In addition, Opportunity Network principals, who lead the alternative schools, are collaborating too—by conducting “learning walks” with SDP leadership, calling each other to seek advice and offer support, and learning and celebrating with each other through professional learning communities and communities of practice each month.
Using data and accountability.
Progress cannot be systematically measured when data is absent. Successful alternative schools diligently collect, analyze, and use data. The conference highlighted the work of the OIC Career and Academic Development Institute (OIC CADI) in Philadelphia, which has seen its graduation rate rise from 69% to 87% over the past several years. Grant likened schools to running businesses, with a need to focus on efficiency and results: “FedEx can’t lose your package, so neither should schools be able to lose students.” At OIC CADI, every new student develops a personal learning plan during their first 30 days. Early on, the student has a map of courses and other requirements toward graduation. Students can answer basic questions, such as “When do you graduate?” and “What are you working on for your senior project?” At Congreso, a multi-service organization, staff work to understand students’ experiences and examine qualitative and quantitative data from various phases of their programming (e.g., orientation) to figure out why some students persist while others do not.
“Schools are like children, they will rise or fall based on the expectations you give them,” stated Majeedah Scott, director of Multiple Pathways to Graduation at SDP. The Opportunity Network uses an accountability system, composed of an evaluation framework, mid-year and annual evaluations with rubrics, and a classroom observation tool. Principals receive detailed narrative reports and engage in follow-up activities with the District. During the convening, leaders of the Opportunity Network emphasized that accountability is crucial as a systematic way to inform internal and external stakeholders of whether schools are achieving their goals and whether they should continue to serve students given the quality of their programming.
Seeing the whole system.
Regarding cross-system accountability, Philadelphia Youth Network (PYN) president and CEO Chekemma Fulmore-Townsend reflected that PYN’s partners do not work in silos. They have sat down together to look at zip code data to determine where the youth in their programs were coming from and talked across agencies about the implications of the data. Looking at data enabled them to make observations about what they were seeing and to discuss the supports they were offering to youth. In the end, they were able to make “conscious decisions” about scaling programs that were having a positive impact and defunding others. According to Grant, it is “the expertise of the system” that helps the District know where youth are and serve them as best it can. By understanding what each school offers, the Reengagement Center can be more effective about matching students to programs. Through its mission to “create coordinated systems which promote the attainment of academic achievement, economic opportunity and personal success,” PYN helps hold the systems in Philadelphia, including the school district, accountable for student success.
Schools are like children; they will rise or fall based on the expectations you give them.
–Majeedah Scott, Director of Multiple Pathways to Graduation, SDP
Accessing funding and resources.
Leadership and collaboration, as well as data and accountability, cannot happen without financial resources. Both the school district and PYN have reallocated their funds to increase support for effective educational options. On an annual basis, SDP dedicates $150 million and a central office team toward reengagement. It has also been gradually increasing the per pupil expenditure for alternative education schools (currently at $10,500). As Christina Grant noted, it is important to get specific about how much it costs to fully support students who reengage in school. This clarity supports funding decisions by local and state policymakers. SDP works with schools to pursue grants with local and national philanthropy, and it successfully secured two grants last year. For PYN, collaboration extends to funding efforts. PYN has made it common practice to share RFPs with its partners to determine if grants align with others’ priorities so that they can pursue funding together. To reduce the burden of finances to achieving higher education, the Community College of Philadelphia has a college promise that enables Philadelphia high school graduates to pursue an associate’s degree at no cost for tuition and fees.
These four themes about what it takes to achieve systems change rose to the top during the convening and are evident in the Philadelphia reengagement work. They constitute tried and tested practices gleaned not only in Philadelphia but also through Equal Measure’s evaluation work in communities across the country.
For more information on lessons learned from these initiatives, see the OYIF 2017 annual evaluation report and the Regional Hubs systems leadership issue brief.