How to use school-level autonomy to improve schools? Design it with the people most affected by it.     

Since 2020, CPRL has worked with Lawrence Public Schools (LPS) in Massachusetts to create a framework to guide its school improvement work. As one of the lowest performing districts in the state, LPS was put into receivership in 2011. Under the leadership of state-appointed Receiver Jeff Riley, the district set out to transform from a highly centralized management structure to a new model they called Open Architecture, through which the district creates and maintains operational and performance ground rules and standards and grants school leaders with school-level autonomy to meet those standards. 

After the district made promising improvements in academic achievement and graduation rates, the LPS engaged CPRL to lead a process for developing a School Autonomy Framework to help the district better understand what success looks like in its schools and how it can best support schools to meet the needs of all students. 

Melissa Spash became LPS Assistant Superintendent in 2021 after several years as a middle and high school principal. As part of her portfolio, she was charged with supporting the further development and implementation of the School Autonomy Framework. The district began rolling out the framework in Spring 2023 through a pilot program. As LPS prepares to expand use of the framework this spring, the CPRL team recently sat down with Dr. Spash, now deputy superintendent, to get her reflections on the process for developing the framework and what it has meant for the district and for her own work as a leader. Dr. Spash will leave LPS to become superintendent of Natick Public Schools this June. 

You have been overseeing the development and roll out of the School Autonomy Framework for the last several years. What has been significant about this process for Lawrence?

When Jeff Riley became receiver of Lawrence, he brought his deep belief in school-based decision making and autonomy. The question then became, how do you do that successfully? How do you make sure you have school leaders who can navigate that? 

Like management of any complex change, there was no simple answer. Building the School Autonomy Framework became much bigger than the framework itself. It’s been about the process. With CPRL’s help, we used a people and process lens to develop the framework. It’s been about building relationships, communicating transparently, delivering on what we had promised, and building systems that include accountability but also support. 

We did a lot of listening – that has been the most powerful part of this work. For example, by interviewing principals and district staff, we learned that principals cared deeply about having a say. They wanted two-way communication and data that truly reflected their schools. We created opportunities for stakeholder voice in the development and roll out of the framework, such as through committees with teachers, principals, and members of the teacher and paraprofessional unions. The principals really were our co-designers – their input was invaluable for making needed changes along the way. 

How has this process informed the shape of the framework and the work the district is doing today?

Early on, we were calling the framework the Earned Autonomy Framework. It was perceived as something that was being done to principals and schools. It was going to be used to evaluate schools and either reward them with more autonomies or penalize them by removing or not expanding autonomies. But some leaders became anxious when they heard the term “earned autonomy;” it was not well defined and had some principals wondering, “Is this a way to fire me?” With input from principals, we changed the name to School Autonomy Framework. 

Through this inclusive process, that approach evolved and the framework became a tool that would help principals identify challenges so they could get the support their schools needed and improve. Creating a reflective and iterative process helped alleviate principals’ fears over time, and has helped us get buy-in. Because principals were codesigning the framework, they were able to serve as ambassadors for the work. Ultimately we formalized ownership over the framework in a School Autonomy Framework Management Committee, co-run by principals, which gave the work credibility. This work helped us to get clearer on school priorities and cohesion, and organized school communities around a shared vision. 

Why is this process significant? What impact are you seeing?

We are seeing how the framework is dovetailing with so much of what we are doing around school systems and structures. In our school planning meetings, it’s at the top of our agenda. Principals are naming their priorities from the framework and the support they need to achieve them. When we talk about goals, we discuss where we will see the framework in their goals. When they ask for staff, they need to explain how it is aligned with the framework. We are aligning school priority indicators to district priorities.

This has helped us identify the kind of data we need to collect and how we can use it on an ongoing basis to make improvements. In addition to testing and other quantitative data in the framework, we elevated qualitative data and built out staff and student surveys in addition to the family surveys we were already doing. We hired a firm to build a data dashboard. Now schools have real time data they can sort and search – on attendance, discipline, state MCAS and other assessments. 

As for impact, while it’s early, we are showing great improvement so far. For example, pedagogy improved significantly in the last two school years as measured by our School Quality Reviews. That means more schools have well-established instructional vision rooted in a set of beliefs about how students learn best and expectations are communicated and driving classroom instruction. That’s a hard thing to move. 

Of course, we have a lot more work to do. Over time, we are confident we will show continued improvement given how the framework helps us target supports where they’re needed. For example, if our priorities are around multilingual learners or intervention, the framework will make sure that school staff and leaders get support to address those priorities. 

How have you continued to build out this inclusive process in the framework development and roll out?

In Fall 2023, we launched the School Autonomy Framework Management Committee, which was a great capacity-builder for  principals. They present to principals and the Lawrence Alliance for Education, the district receiver board, and I come in when they need help or thought partnership. It’s been nice to share ownership and see leadership over this initiative transfer to them.

We also created implementation pilot teams open to any interested principal. They have been testing the framework as it has been developed and have been helping us adapt and improve it. 

This spring, we are using the framework to identify a new category of schools – those in need of intensive wraparound support. CPRL helped us develop a way to measure which schools might be in need of intensive support and reviewed it with the committee. Intensive support schools will be designated at the end of the school year when we have the most up-to-date information from the school quality review, attendance, and test data. 

What advice do you have for system leaders looking to develop a school autonomy framework?

For a leader to make this work, you have to have 100 percent belief in autonomy. If you believe in a top down approach and try to implement this, there is a risk of value-based conflicts.

Keep it rooted in qualitative and quantitative data, get principal buy-in, be ok with different iterations. Take local context into account. Be careful about purpose. Our purpose was not to fire principals. We wanted a mechanism to help schools navigate their autonomy and see where they need more help than they were getting. 

And perhaps most importantly, create an inclusive process for conceiving, designing, and continuously improving your tools. If you’re not co-designing with the people who will use and be affected by this framework, it will be nearly impossible to get buy-in and have it work the way you need it.