STRIVE Discusion from July 17 LRT Retreat

From July 17, 2009 Leaders Roundtable retreatSTRIVE Framework Presentation by Jeff Edmondson Page 1-2 Questions and Discussion about STRIVE Framework Pages 2-7 Key Agreements & Retreat C

From July 17, 2009 Leaders Roundtable retreat

STRIVE Framework Presentation by Jeff Edmondson Page 1-2

Questions and Discussion about STRIVE Framework Pages 2-7

Key Agreements & Retreat Consensus Pages 8-9

STRIVE Presentation and Discussion

STRIVE is not a model; it is a framework This is an important distinction Every community is different and to work, the framework needs to be able to adjust to those differences Living Cities is working with STRIVE to expand this framework to other cities Hopefully, if the LRT chose to use this framework, the process would be smoother and faster as you would be able to learn from our mistakes

The STRIVE PowerPoint presentation is available on the Leaders Roundtable website Portland STRIVE Presentation

In Ohio, the spark that really started all of the work that has gone on the last few years, was one simple statistic: That out of 10 students who enter high school, only 7 will graduate on time, 4 will immediately enroll in college, 3 will still be enrolled as a sophomore and only 2 will graduate from high school on time And college here is defined as either a two or four year college and on time is defined as 6 years Oregon has the exact same leaky pipeline with the same graduation and college going rates In an age when higher education is so vital to a person’s chances for success and a living wage job, these results are just not acceptable

In Cincinnati, these statistics spurred a conversation about how to improve outcomes for students Area leaders met and started talking about new programs to address the issue of their poor graduation rates But the coroner in Cincinnati, who is a powerful force in the town and an important leader, stood up and

threatened to leave if they kept talking about new programs As he said, the city was program rich and systems poor They needed a systems change in order to change the outcomes This is where the conversation really changed, and they started to think about bringing all of the pieces together to create a more cohesive and effective whole

Jeff got involved due to this change in the conversation He works for a group called the

KnowledgeWorks Foundation – a philanthropic organization that gives funding and expertise to support educational system shifts As part of their support for the work in Cincinnati, they loaned Jeff to help facilitate this shift

Jeff and the original leaders worked to pull together a cross-sector partnership focused on finding out what works for kids STRIVE is comprised of leaders from the education, non-profit, corporate,

philanthropic, postsecondary, and civic sectors

They saw that there was a great deal of good work going on but that efforts were not aligned to

effectively and efficiently support student success They were at the accountability stage where there were similar organizations collecting quality data but in an uncoordinated and isolated manner This is effective but not evidence based or efficient Alignment is better – where similar organizations are collecting quality data that align under similar outcomes for broad community impact This is where they are now But the goal is synergy – where similar organizations are collecting quality data for the same outcomes in a coordinated and collaborative network STRIVE is working to get them to systems synergy

The STRIVE vision is: Successful Students Productive Citizens Thriving Cities

And their mission is: Create a world class system of education that ensures every student has the

opportunity to succeed from cradle to career

Many of us have a tendency to think about education as a school issue – education is what goes on in a little red schoolhouse But it can’t be about this schoolhouse Education is a community issue and it spans from pre-natal to career

As part of their work to define their goals and benchmarks, STRIVE developed a Roadmap to Success document This charts the key indicators they want to see both academically and on the student/family side, to help ensure a student’s path to success

They also developed clear goals According to theses goals, every student in the region will:

•Be PREPARED for school

•Be SUPPORTED inside and outside school

•SUCCEED academically

•ENROLL in some form of college

•GRADUATE and enter a career

Questions

Marcus Mundy – You have a goal for all students to go to college Do you believe that all students need

to aim for a college education? Do you think that is important for all kids?

Jeff Edmondson – For us, college means whatever it takes to get them to a good career This could be a

certification, a career training program, or a four year college We used the word college as it worked for

us and our community Different communities might choose to use a different word

Gale Castillo – What we hear from the trades now, is that students have to go to community college to

gain those skills College really is a vital piece for most jobs

Ron Gould – How long did it take to get “ready for school” on that list of goals?

Jeff Edmondson – Not long, but United Way had already done a large early childhood initiative, which

helped to gain broader understanding of the importance of this piece

It took them a year and a half to get to these goals and at that point, they still had no idea of how to reach them That led to the definition of outcomes and benchmarks The group defined what

information they would need in order to be able to measure the outcomes of their work

The outcomes they wanted to track were:

1 Percent of Children Assessed as Ready for School

2 Percent of Students with More than 20 Developmental Assets

3 Percent of 4th and 8th Grade Students at or above Proficiency in Reading and Math

4 Percent of Students who Graduate from High School

5 Average Score on the ACT

6 Percent of Graduates who Enroll in College

7 Percent of Students Prepared for College Level Coursework

8 Percent of Students who are Retained in College

9 Percent of Students who Graduate from College

10 College Degrees Conferred

But it took another year for them to pull together all of the data that they needed to start tracking these pieces

Scott Fletcher – How much discussion was there around the measures?

Jeff Edmondson – There were a number of meetings with groups like this to decide on which measures

to use

Scott Fletcher – Was there much conversation over the importance of the curriculum outcome level of

students?

Jeff Edmondson – There was a great deal of conversation around this Some people thought that this

promoted standardized testing, which they didn’t like But this has helped us to determine which

assessments are most effective

John Topagna - This is one path, but it seems like they are being rather hard on themselves There are

other forms of success and it seems very challenging to expect to get all kids to follow this one path

Jeff Edmondson – The group put the goal out there as this is what they want to aim for However, they

also realize the reality One project they will be working on is an expanded roadmap with on ramps and off ramps which show a range of different paths But they had wanted to start big and work their way back down

Due to the length of time it took to get the data together, they had to start working on systems

alignment before the data came out They started by working with the wraparound services – the services that support student and community success such as student mentoring This involved getting the right people at the table, defining the measures of success, connecting to the STRIVE framework, and creating an action plan based on what the data tells us

Anita Decker – The issue here is getting everyone to align around the same issue How did you manage

to do that?

Jeff Edmondson – If I said that everyone was around the table and happy about it, I would be lying But

there is a key group of top level executive leaders who agreed to common outcomes and the need to have forward movement on this Looking back now they can see that their process was too top down but

you need to have the core leaders connected It is important to help the different groups to see how this work will benefit them And the focus is not on bringing in an outside program to fix all of the

problems The key is to build on what is already working in our communities

Anita Decker – So if we want to look at what is working in our communities, why are we talking about

bringing in a program from Cincinnati?

Jeff Edmondson – This is a framework, not a program You would make it your own

Anita Decker – Getting the right people in the room and getting them to agree to one thing is very hard Marcus Mundy – And realizing that not all of the groups that come in to the room will leave Some

groups or programs will die if they are not the right program or not effectively serving kids

Jeff Edmondson – When you start to look at things in terms of outcomes, you can really see which

programs are impactful and which aren’t But we don’t have to be talking about closing programs If they are open to making changes and if this turns things around that’s great But yes, it is a real issue We need to have the honest conversations about what’s working and what isn’t and we need to learn how

to do more with less

Lolenzo Poe – You talk about the importance of getting the right people into the room But who calls

them into the room? Who decides who the right people are? 11

Jeff Edmondson – In Cincinnati, they had seven critical leaders who all had the same vision at the same

time The first step is to get the core group of leaders to stick to the goals and the vision

Marc Levy –We have to keep in mind that it will look different here We have a different culture than

they have in Cincinnati Oregon has a history of rugged individualism; we are not a community of joiners

We could follow this model, but it will turn out differently here

Jeff Edmondson – This is all about focusing on the data It is about sharing information and resources to

improve outcomes

Bob McKean – What we need is a brand - a recognized endorsement that groups would value

Jeff Edmondson – STRIVE is still the cool group to be part of in Cincinnati, but this is risky What happens

when we are no longer cool? We are trying to show people the benefits of working together

Kari Stanley – We already have groups playing a role similar to the networks, such as Oregon Mentors Jeff Edmondson – And we had groups like this too before we started We are trying to build on what

already exists and help groups use data to more effectively improve outcomes It should be all about the

data By looking at things in this way, we can really see where the gaps are For example, we had a district where only 18% of students were meeting 8th grade math benchmarks But that district had an 89% graduation rate Many of the kids were getting moved out of the system into programs where the schools didn’t have to report on them This type of thing is not clear unless you look at the data in this level of detail

Bill Scott – When did STRIVE start?

Jeff Edmondson – The wheels started turning in late 2005 and they officially launched STRIVE in 2006

But they are just now launching their strategic plan They see themselves as a catalyst for change with a three-part role STRIVE’s role is to:

1 Coordinate resources around a cradle to career vision to improve specific student/community

outcomes

2 Improve effectiveness by ensuring data is used to build on evidence-based practices and

innovate as necessary

3 Advocate for funders, policymakers, and the community to support what works

STRIVE has several layers of organization

1 At the top they have a Steering Committee whose purpose is to share information and receive strategic guidance These quarterly meetings are open to all interested stakeholders

2

Then they have an Executive Committee, which develops the strategic plan and drives advocacy This group is made up of the key 15-18 cross sector CEOs from the Steering Committee There is a balance of business, education, and non-profit leadership This group meets at least bi-monthly

3 Next they have staff: The director (who can speak all of the different languages and work with all

of the involved groups), a facilitator (who can help ensure the difficult conversations move forward), and

a data manager

4

5 Finally they have an operations team which works to support the implementation of the

strategic plan This group meets monthly and is made up of people who know how to really get things done with the various strategies

STRIVE picked too many strategies and it would be best to stick with no more than five covering the entire spectrum from birth to college

Ken Thrasher – Do you have coherent cross spectrum data?

Jeff Edmondson – We already had a lot of really strong data and we are continuing to improve this John Tapogna – Did you have any issues with having the teachers union at the table?

Jeff Edmondson – For us this was never a question We were very committed to having them there

Sometimes it has been tense, but they are very happy to be at the table

This whole process has taken quite a while and one of the things STRIVE hopes is that others going down this path will be able to learn from their mistakes They have several lessons learned they think it’s important to touch on

In retrospect they would:

1 Release community level baseline data immediately

2 Pick no more than five strategies across the Roadmap to start

3 Ensure public and private funders are committed to using existing and new resources to support

action plans

4 Establish strong a communications plan from the start and communicate that this is a long-term

commitment

For them it was a real challenge to get the public sector engaged as they were working across two states and three counties It would have added a large number of participants to their committees, which seemed impractical at the time But it is important to find a way to do this

And it is essential that both participants and the general public understand that this is a long-term project that will require years and years of effort and commitment It takes a lot of work, but it is

important for us all to come together and get our oars rowing in the same direction

In response to the earlier question on disaggregated data – the network programs report demographic information

Dan Ryan – What is your funding model and budget?

Jeff Edmondson – They are entirely funded by the KnowledgeWorks Foundation who wanted to take the

resource issue off the table and just let them focus on doing the work STRIVE has a 500K budget from KnowledgeWorks STRIVE also has a funders circle to help fundraise for the network programs

Bill Scott – What has changed in the community because of STRIVE’s work and how sustainable is it? Jeff Edmondson – They have had a number of the original leaders leave, and STRIVE is still going which

points to their sustainability As far as change in the community, there has been much more discussion about data and how to use data most effectively And some of the outcomes are improving but there definitely needs to be more movement in this area over the next few years There has also been a shift from viewing education as a schoolhouse issue, to a more holistic picture of education and the

community 13

Sam Stern – Has this had a greater impact outside the region? Is it impacting statewide system

structures?

Jeff Edmondson – They have started to have conversations about expanding this framework and the

governor’s wife has indicated that she is interested in this Local conversations around education have definitely improved and state conversations appear to be moving in the same direction

Ken Thrasher – How does the assessment system work in their area and how do their outcomes

compare to NAEP?

Jeff Edmondson – Ohio has state testing but Kentucky recently put their testing on hold for three years

In regards to NAEP, Ohio tends to perform worse on NAEP than on their state assessments

John Tapogna – Do they have plans to go after Race for the Top funds?

Jeff Edmondson – They will probably be submitting an application and the Executive Committee will be

discussing this

Thoughts on the STRIVE Framework

Duncan Wyse – This is a great model We have been doing this type of work for a while; we have

benchmarks and use data The question is how we make this effective at the ground level What do we need to do to make progress toward our objectives? No one has really figured this out on a systemic level And we need to get the leadership together and aligned around common goals

Ted Wheeler – It was clear that communications and planning are critical to the success of this work We

need to make it clear that education is linked to economic development and also to the wellbeing and quality of our communities The planning and messaging that STRIVE has done are impressive This framework makes a lot of sense They started with focus groups and developed clear benchmarks and measurable outcomes A great deal of our thinking is already aligned with this type of work It was very nice to hear both the benefits and the challenges of this process Thank you for making it clear that this

was a framework not a model and that it would play out differently in a different community As Lolenzo commented earlier, who leads the discussion is very important

This would be a long-term commitment and this is important in how we think about it and how we communicate this work with others

Wim Wiewel – Strong leadership is very important for this work Earlier we discussed the cultural

differences in leadership between Cincinnati and here Chicago, where I worked for years, is very similar

to Cincinnati There, if you get the right people together, things get done Here it is more complicated In many ways this complexity is a good thing There is a lot of focus on collective action, on discussion and collaboration But no one is allowed to step forward and say ‘I am the leader.’ It’s not so direct here As Duncan said, we are already doing a lot of this work But it is not at the level of cohesiveness and clarity that STRIVE appears to have attained It is very exciting that the Leaders Roundtable appears to be ready

to take the next step, or reset step And PSU is ready to commit significant staff time to work with partners on developing this, however it looks in Portland

Nichole Maher – This is very affirming to the work that has already been done here in Oregon We are

very lucky to have so many of the structural elements already in place But we can be almost crippled by how much we want to make everyone happy and we have to be aware of this tendency We have a hard time facing the really challenging conversations We need to talk more about our children of color We still don’t seem comfortable having this conversation But if we truly want to have an impact, we need to

be courageous enough to have these conversations We also need to address our out-of-school youth and what their options are

Marc Levy – Communicating the link between education and economic development is critical The jobs

that we lost in the recession are not the jobs that will be coming back Education is the way to prepare students for this We need to build on the many good things that are already going on and take them to the next level But we will have to make some tough decisions Our current economic situation will make this harder, but by working together and achieving some level of synergy, we can achieve more than we could by working alone The United Way is ready to commit resources to this effort As Jeff said, there are a number of elements in play outside of our schools We have the challenges presented by a quick turnover in our neighborhoods and the educational gaps that result from students changing schools repeatedly We will have our own set of challenges here in Oregon, and we need to spend the time to make sure we are focusing in the right areas

Maxine Thompson– There are a number of similarities between the LRT and STRIVE The LRT is closer at

this point in time to that clear alignment of leadership STRIVE was founded on than we have ever been The goal and mission Jeff shared are right on point with everything the LRT has been doing A plus for us

is that we have a clearly defined geography and a group of school districts and postsecondary

institutions that already work very closely together Oregon is also used to thinking of education in broader, more inclusive terms We already use data to improve our work and have groups like Oregon Mentors and the Early Childhood Council who are fulfilling the network aspect of the framework But we don’t have the fortune 500 companies here Oregon leadership is more government based than business based But the LRT has a 25-year history to build upon in this community and despite the changes over the years has remained sustainable

Gale Castillo – With STRIVE, how did you get programs to sign on to the network? Was there a letter

people had to sign to become part of it?

Jeff Edmondson – They had considered having a memo of understanding, but their leadership had

decided that in their area that had tended to do more harm than good They wanted this to be

something that groups were part of because they believed in it, not simply more paperwork for them to fill out The idea is that groups have a real personal involvement with the effort

Gale Castillo – How active are these groups in the networks? How do you get that seal of approval? Jeff Edmondson – If someone is interested in the level of involvement of a group, for a grant application

for example, they would generally just call STRIVE STRIVE staff would let them know what the group’s level of involvement had been For the seal of approval they have an endorsement process, which has ended up simply being a paperwork hoop for groups to jump through It has become more political What you want to do is keep it about progress

Appendix D Small group discussions

Group 1: Marc Levy reporting – Their group discussed LRT changing its role to serve as the organizing

structure by focusing on clear outcomes, engaging more people and groups in this work, and creating a clear strategy of how to get from point A to point B Resources are clearly an issue in a city with no Fortune 500 companies

Group 2: Dan Ryan reporting – Their group wanted to get really honest and they focused mostly on

obstacles Too often we don’t do this and then a few years down the road we wonder why the effort didn’t succeed One thing the group talked about is the need to get comfortable with the idea of

Portland impolite Too often we are afraid to get real, to say the hard truths Portlanders can be wimpy and back down when things get tough Funding is a clear challenge here This is not a home run town in terms of funding We would have to get by with lots of little donations This vision will need to include all kids, but we need to be especially aware of the kids on the fringes, the kids who don’t have the family support to help them get through Some kids are at a disadvantage from before they are born, to no fault

of their own We also have too many non-profits There is a lack of efficiency and some of these groups will have to go, especially in this economy The Leaders Roundtable can serve as an incubator for this new effort but the structure would need to change It is important to keep this a high level conversation and keep the CEOs at the table

Group 3: Ken Thrasher reporting – Their group saw the LRT as the Leadership Council of this new group

There would then be a number of sub-councils that could be formed We need to focus on the work that

is most likely to have the largest impact on the outcomes This is done by focusing on data that crosses all spectrums and by having clear outcomes and benchmarks It is also important to have the right people at the table

Group 4: Bill Scott reporting – Their group was concerned about whether this would address the

achievement gap and the needs of communities of color How would this new system translate into suddenly addressing things they have been unable to address successfully for years? This organization would need to be a new entity, not just the most recent incarnation of the LRT

Pam Curtis – So to sum up, we do need some sort of organizing structure and this could be STRIVE with

modifications But there are a variety of views around the role that the Leaders Roundtable should play

in this effort Is this the LRT in a new form or is it a whole new entity?

Ray Jubitz – We could have the LRT serve as a board with a group below that has its own name or entity Bob McKean – We already have the CEO group in the LRT What would the point of another group be?

We are already focusing on many of these issues We could simply rework what we are doing now, or we could create a whole new entity

Maxine Thompson – I think a new name is important If it is going to be considered new and have a new

focus, it needs a new name

Ken Thrasher – It’s all about branding and marketing The name is very important

Bill Scott – What the Roundtable is doing now, will still need to be done One of the activities of this new

entity could be to conduct a Leaders Roundtable and some of the LRT members might be part of the bigger action piece What we have created over the past 25 years needs to continue It is important that

we don’t lose the functionality of what we have

Marc Levy – These options are not terribly differently but the devil’s in the details Are we a board of

directors; are we a new group? Implementation will be key

Pam Curtis– It sounds like we all agree to some version of the Leaders Roundtable either serving as a

board of directors or changing its role to serve as the needed infrastructure But it seems important that the current function of the LRT not be lost

Ken Thrasher – This decision should be driven by outcomes for kids What is the best way to keep things

moving forward?

Marc Levy – This work starts with clear vision, outcomes, and targets

Pam Curtis – It sounds like we will need to engage some additional partners including the unions,

additional service groups, and community leaders What about the future of the Vision Paper?

Ken Thrasher – There was a lot of good work that went into the Vision Paper, but we really need to start

with a clean sheet and incorporate this work

Bill Scott – Elements would need to be new, for example, we would need a new vision statement that

included this work But much of what is in the Vision Paper would still apply The focus on teen learning could become one of our key strategies We can take what we have and add to it

Anita Decker – The Vision Paper could span the continuum but provide more detail on the pieces that

we want to focus on, our key strategies

Pam Curtis – So to sum up, the LRT would continue in its current function but would branch out The

current Vision Paper can serve as a basis for a broader vision, which incorporates these new elements

We will need a small group to work on drafting a plan for this new piece

Marc Levy – We need to really plan out how we are going to make it from point A to B

Bill Scott – Before he left, Gregg Kantor indicated that he was excited about this work and might be

interested in taking on a leadership role Andrew McGough indicated other businesses might be

interested in being involved if we developed a system

The following people volunteered to work on drafting a straw dog roadmap: Marc Levy, Randy Hitz, Zeke Smith, Bob McKean, Keylah Frazier, and Ken Thrasher

Pam Curtis – This group will prepare a mock up, by the September 22 LRT meeting

Anita Decker – How do we ensure that this does not get edited to death? The Vision Paper went through

round after round of edits and still isn’t considered done

Jeff Edmondson – Set yourself tough deadlines and stick to them And once you have agreed to

something move on We set up the rule that we document and move on You can’t continually go back and revisit what you did last meeting

Anita Decker – Then this mockup needs to get out to folks before the meeting so that everyone can have

a chance to provide input

Maxine Thompson – If we are going to try and incorporate input, this is too short of a timeframe.

All groups agreed that an organizing framework is needed to align efforts and resources And the groups all agreed that STRIVE could serve as that organizing structure with modifications or

considerations Each group shared about their conversations and the issues or needed modifications they discussed

Key Agreements/ Retreat Consensus

0 The community represented by the Leaders Roundtable needs an organizing framework that can align efforts and resources, and implement a coordinated community effort

1 The STRIVE framework can serve as a foundation, but needs to be modified and adjusted to fit the culture and reality of this community

2 The organizing framework, and the infrastructure necessary to achieve it, should be connected

to the work of the Leaders Roundtable by some combination of the

following two options, that continues the current function of the LRT and launches the organizing framework:

1 LRT serves as a “leaders council” with a new effort established

2 LRT changes its role sufficiently (adding staff, resources, etc) to serve as the community-wide

infrastructure

• A small group will meet to draw create a “straw dog” proposal and a map of how to achieve it The group will present their proposal at the September 22, 2009 meeting of the LRT LRT members Randy Hitz and Bob McKean will help draft the proposal In addition, members Marc Levy, Zeke Smith, Keylah Frazier, and Ken Thrasher will serve on the committee (and later added Duncan Wyse and Lolenzo Poe)

Organizing Framework: Charge to Small Group

Charge to the Small Group

Based on consensus agreement outlined above, present a draft for discussion at the September 22, 2009 meeting that proposes: 1) an organizing framework to align efforts and resources; 2) infrastructure necessary to implement a coordinated community effort; and 3) the role of the LRT (see above) The proposal should build on the foundation of the STRIVE framework, maintain the current function of the LRT, and address the following issues identified at the retreat:

• Infrastructure must develop vision, benchmarks, targets and communication/coordination processes

• The structure should utilize and build on other resources and initiatives already in the community (reference continuum map from the retreat)

• The effort should serve to increase the urgency in this community, including:

.1 Inviting top employers to the table

.2 Consider role of the unions

.3 Focus on community (not institutional) leaders

.4 Systemic change necessary to sell to business, funders and providers

.5

• Framework should address some uncomfortable facts about this community, including:

.6 Disparities

.7 Poverty

.8 Achievement gap

.9 Issues with unions

.10 Need for structural reform

.11

• Use the recently completed Vision Paper to:

.12 Launch a new vision for this work

.13 Craft one key strategy on teen learning to be incorporated into the work

.14

• Identify resources necessary to accomplish the work Note:

.15 STRIVE annual budget of $600k, but Jeff Edmondson states they could do it for $300k

.16 PSU has offered in-kind support of its staff

.17 United Way and Livable Cities have stated willingness to provide some level of cash support