This report examines the impact of the Gates Foundation “collaboration grants” in seven cities: Boston, Denver, Hartford, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, and Spring Branch (Texas). In each of these cities, districts and charters have signed a “compact” committing them to closer cooperation (and making them eligible for grants). These compacts have many goals, including the increased sharing of facilities, the creation of common enrollment systems, and other changes in policy; however, this report focuses on activities that “target specific staff participants,” such as school partnerships, cross-sector training, and professional development.
Based on conversations with teachers, principals, and central office administrators, the authors conclude that “overall progress in increasing collaboration has been limited.” In particular, while collaboration between principals has increased as a result of the grants, it is still concentrated among those already “predisposed to cross-sector work.” Moreover, in schools not led by such principals, collaboration between teachers is still “minimal to nonexistent.” More progress is evident at the central office level; but even there, some administrators are skeptical that these efforts can lead to “systematic change.” According to respondents, barriers to collaboration include “limited resources, teachers’ unions, and cross-sector tensions.” However, the report also identifies a few promising strategies, including “purposeful” co-location and cross-sector residency programs for aspiring principals.
According to the authors, “the theory of action driving the collaboration grants is that strategic collaboration will advance innovative strategies and practices and promote the transfer and spread of knowledge and effective practice across schools, ultimately resulting in increased school effectiveness.”
This theory can be questioned. After all, since teacher and principal quality are as likely to vary within the district and charter sectors as between them, the notion that sharing “best practices” across sectors is a cost-efficient way to improve outcomes rests on the assumption that the sectors have something to learn from one another that they cannot easily learn from their own high-performers.
Perhaps they do. According to the authors, the practices that district schools were most likely to share with charters were different from those that charters were most likely to share with district schools. Specifically, district schools were most likely to share practices related to ELA and disability instruction, community and family engagement, small group instruction, and guided reading; charters, on the other hand, were most likely to share practices related to culture and behavior, teacher coaching, interim assessment, and strategic data use.
These lists are suggestive of the relative strengths of each sector. Unfortunately, many respondents felt that the goals of the specific collaboration activities in which they took part were fuzzy. Such is the gap between theory and reality.
SOURCE: Moira McCullough, Luke Heinkel, Betsy Keating, “District-Charter Collaboration Grant Implementation: Findings from Interviews and Site Visits,” Mathematica (August 2015).
