1. IE² Partnership Model Students State Schools Students Schools Local System Strategic Plan Strategic Plan Strategic Plan Strategic Plan

2. IE² Partnership Model Contract Model “QBE” State Local System’s Strategic Plan Local System’s Strategic Plan Local System’s Strategic Plan Local System’s Strategic Plan Local System’s Strategic Plan Local System’s Strategic Plan Contract Model “C” Contract Model “B” Contract Model “A” Contract Model “Charter”

3. Partnership Contract Models Accountability/Performance/Flexibility Concept High Accountability for Georgia’s Schools: Non-Negotiable Level of Flexibility Based on Contract Model Chosen and Results Achieved/Performance Low Flexibility QBE Default High Flexibility Charter Contract B Contract C Contract A

4. Partnership Contract Models Accountability/Performance/Flexibility Concept QBE Default Achievement Measures: AYP Graduation Rate Promotion Rate EOCT SAT AP Percent exceeding grade-level performance on state assessments Writing Assessments Local system initiatives ??? Flexibility Based on Contract Model & Performance Contract AContract CContract BCharter

5. Strategic Plan Process Step 1: System writes 3-year strategic plan and chooses a contract model Step 2: Plan submitted to the appropriate state agency Step 3: Meeting between state agency and chair of peer review panel to discuss agency recommendations, documents Step 4: State agency sends electronic plan to peer review team Step 5: Chair of peer review team has conversation with system superintendent about upcoming process Step 6: Peer review team has 1-2 day meeting at system

6. Step 1: Develop 3-year strategic plan and choose a contract model Uses electronic template on the web Includes less narrative, more focused on data Shows system baseline data, targets, and trends

7. Step 2: Plan submitted to the appropriate state agency State agency reviews and prepares plan for peer review process State agency works with system to issue recommendation of plan to peer review team State agency assigns peer review team to system for 3-year period Members of team: Chair, local school superintendentSystem curriculum director High performance principalOther/alternate members as needed School finance expert Business/parent representative Staff representative (state agency) GDOE staff member

8. Step 3: Meeting between state agency and Chair of peer review panel to discuss agency recommendations, documents Step 4: State agency sends electronic plan to peer review team Step 5: Chair of peer review team has conversation with superintendent about upcoming process

9. Step 6: Peer review team has 1-2 day meeting at System Peer review team meets for instruction/orientation System gives presentation on plan to peer review team (include leaders of lowest and highest performing schools) Discussion on goals, plan, and fit between plan and contract model choice Peer review team gives their recommendation

10. Rewards/Incentives for Meeting 3-Year and Annual Targets Recognition as “District with Distinction” in particular size level (i.e. Class A, AA, etc.) Publication of recognition as stated above Hold an annual “best of” conference where successful districts share their winning strategies. State pays for attendance. Use successful districts as models for teaching videos.

11. Consequences Prior to consequences, ensure no extenuating circumstances prevented system from reaching targets Convert low-performing school in system to charter school and state appoints board System withholds some flexibility from particular school(s) Label the district (i.e. “Probationary District”)

12. Now – Oct. 2007 Finalize process with taskforce and then Governor. Finalize strategic plan template Stage 1 systems create strategic plan Oct. 2007 Stage 1 systems present their plan and unveil process at Bootstrap Nov. 2007 Stage 1 systems begin review process with state agency Jan. 2008 Legislation proposed to codify the contract model Aug. 2008 Stage 1 systems begin operation under new 3-year strategic plan and contract model Schedule

13. General Concepts of Model Education should constitute a certain percentage of the state’s budget. Total amount of dollars will fluctuate depending on the economy. All systems will receive the same per-pupil funding. If a system chooses a contract model with more flexibility, they will have flexibility over how they spend their dollars. (High accountability and high flexibility)

14. Models Default– QBE Charter System Model A Model B Model C These have varying amounts of accountability/flexibility.