| LA | 2011-12 | KIPP Believe Primary | Sees CMO as partner, oversight, resource, developmental support and buffer between LaDOE | High alignment with CMO, Freedom to revise model, school is "given the power to lead'. | No changes in Y2. School and CMO define success the same way. | CMO continues to be a critical support in Y3 and success is defined in the same way across school/CMO. School leader's appreciation for CMO is increased. | CMO coaching visits weekly that are 'tremendously helpful in strategy'. | School appreciates the regional partnership and the ability to see students succeed in later grades even when they struggle in elementary. There is a larger regional view of student success that is provided by the network connection. Survey responses show that the CMO is the primary driver of most areas including leader and teacher PD and the school discipline plan. | The school/CMO relationship begins and remains very strong. The school leader has high autonomy but also a lot of support from the CMO. There is high alignment in definitions of success and the leader values the regional partnership. | In Y4, KIPP built efficiencies at the CMO level and by Y5 had centralized and standardized numerous functions across the network. The CEO sees the CMO as more healthy and stable, which in turn supports the schools. |
| LA | 2011-12 | Clark | The [CMO] started as more of a thought partner, but we've learned that they also need to take part in oversight, help with compliance (e.g. sped), etc.' | In Y1 there is high alignment between the school leaders and the CMO and frequent support. The school has freedom to revise the model. | Leadership turnover from Y1 to Y2 makes it difficult to assess whether there has been change in the CMO relationship, but school and CMO are aligned in definitions of success. | Alignment is high, with frequent communication, coaching, and faith in the relationship in Y3. School leader and CMO define success the same way across an array of metrics and areas. There are frequent check-ins, support with curriculum and PD. | Network support continues to be 'very helpful'. | School appreciates CMO's strong support, but school level respondents also articulate a failure by the CMO to truly listen to and learn from the school level actors on the ground. CMO supports community partnerships, outreach events for parents. | In Y1 there is high alignment between the school and the CMO and frequent support. The school has freedom to revise the model. High alignment and strong support appear to remain across the five years, though the school in Y5 expresses concern that the CMO does not listen or respond to the staff on the ground to the extent that is needed. | By Y4 and Y5, CEO is more focused more on systems level issues than Clark per se. CEO attributes Clark's struggles to (1) weak or wrong school level leadership; (2) high school turnaround being a different animal than K8. |
| LA | 2011-12 | Tubman | No Flagship | CMO and school were 'the same' at the beginning. The school leader served a dual role as CAO of CCS and principal of Tubman. Alignment is a 9.5 and school autonomy is a 5 (out of 10) across the board. The school feels supported by the CMO 'in every way', gives an 'A'. 'Our priorities are the same.' | School has full autonomy in all decisions. Alignment is very high. Success is defined the same. Relationship is still close, but not as close as Y1 since the network is growing. | By year three, the relationship has evolved as both the school and CMO have grown but this has not negatively impacted the school-CMO relationship. Success is still defined the same way. Alignment is a 10. CMO supports communications around mission. | No data | We all share components of the mission, including the goal of excellence and open-enrollment'. In the hiring process, the CMO is the gate keeper. | The CMO/school relationship for Tubman is very close from the onset, as the school is the first in the CCS network and the CMO and school leadership teams function virtually as one unit. Alignment and support are very high and remain so across time, even as the relationship evolves through the expansion of the CMO to include additional schools. Human capital support and thought partnership are the most valued aspects of the CMO. | High alignment in definitions of success, including the downgrading of long-term goal from becoming an A school to becoming a B school. Principal's status as founding CMO team member enhanced mission and practice alignment in early years. By Y5, CMO central office has begun clarifying roles and responsibilities, with CEO feeling more confident in her ultimate role of quality control and in finding the balance between letting principals learn from mistakes vs. not allowing the autonomy to make mistakes Kate knows from experience are avoidable. |
| LA | 2012-13 | Carver Prep | The flagship sees the CMO relationship as 'partner, oversight, and resource'. | In Y1 the school reports, 'The core mission is absolutely maintained, but specific practices are up to' the school Definitions of success between the school and CMO are the same. Alignment with the CMO is a '10'. Support for principal from the CMO gets an 'A'. | School in Y2 reports no major changes; a positive relationship. ' [The CMO is] still working out the most productive ways to collaborate across the schools'. | School in Y3 reports no major changes, relationship with CMO is positive. Success is defined the same. Collegiate's strength is 'endless support available'. | Good principal coaching/ support from the CMO. 'Direct leadership development' is the most valuable CMO resource. | | There is a very strong relationship between Carver Prep and the CMO throughout the four years of i3. In Y2 there are some challenges with collaborating across schools. The school describes 'endless support' (coaching, leadership development) from the CMO, but also high alignment and high autonomy. | In 14-15, Collegiate made strategic changes to better clarify CMO-school roles and support school fcns. CEO perceived all as going well except PE/CE. By 15-16 these centralized functions had solidified at CMO level as well as global keeper of the brand. |
| LA | 2012-13 | Carver Collegiate | The flagship sees the CMO relationship as 'partner, oversight, and resource'. | In Y1 the school reports 'an expectation that [the school] would borrow a whole lot' from the flagship. Alignment with the CMO is a '9'. Support for leader from CMO is an 'A' all school respondents. CMO is described as 'an internal evaluator with next steps included'. | In Y2, 'Collegiate has gotten better at looking at schools' individual needs instead of just using expectations from [the flagship].' | In Y3 the CMO intervened a lot more which was 'needed and useful'. 'There's lots of presence from the network on human capital and PD, coaching, talent.' Relationship with the CMO is good 'but the reality of figuring out how the schools are different has been difficult.' | Lots of support from the CMO around curriculum, leadership coaching, finance, data. 'One of the beauties of being in this network is that we can default to practices that worked at Sci. So now we're thinking about what does it mean to be a Collegiate Academy school? What are our non-negotiables? Different communities have different people, different narratives, different experiences, and if you don't let that difference into your school, you're in trouble. Drilling college down kids' throats is not the school I want to be. We are more responsive, and I'm getting to a place where I finally know how I want this school to feel. But this is the first year that the community could walk into this school, or Prep, or Sci, and distinguish among them (aside from Carver being a much worse school than Sci).' | | There is high alignment with and support from the CMO, but the ability to differentiate between schools to meet needs and define strengths has been a challenge. The school reports, 'There's lots of presence from the network on human capital and PD, coaching, talent', but notes that they are not yet doing a great job of messaging the school's distinct mission to the community. 'One of the beauties of being in this network is that we can default to practices that worked at [the flagship]. So now we're thinking about what does it mean to be a Collegiate Academy school? What are our non-negotiables? Different communities have different people, different narratives, different experiences, and if you don't let that difference into your school, you're in trouble. Drilling college down kids' throats is not the school we want to be. We are more responsive... this is the first year that the community could walk into this school, or Carver Prep, or Sci Academy, and distinguish among them.' | In 14-15, Collegiate made strategic changes to better clarify CMO-school roles and support school fcns. CEO perceived all as going well except PE/CE. By 15-16 these centralized fcns had solidified at CMO level as well as global keeper of the brand. |
| LA | 2012-13 | Cohen | The flagship sees the CMO relationship as 'partner, oversight, and resource'. | In Y1 there was a strong expectation to adhere to the practices of the flagship, but that shifted toward giving the school more flexibity to expand. School and CMO define success the same way. Alignment with CMO is a 7, which is framed as an improvement-'previously more CMO heavy'. (note: 'Y1' for CREDO is actually Y2 for the school). The school has "a lot of autonomy' to design 'what works for us'. 'The ultimate accountability is maintaining goals'. | Relationship with the CMO is positive. The school has leadership support, but needs further leadership development (particularly around academics). In Y2 the school sees the beginning of a shift toward greater development. The CEO is helping to support further development. | Y3, school describes changes and challenges as the network has grown, but the relationship between the school and the CMO have become stronger for it--'the challenge is how to be autonomous while still remaining part of the network'. 'The expanded number of CMO roles and expanded presence of the CMO has raised questions and created growing pains for the high school specifically'. Success is defined the same by school/CMO. | School still has a strong amount of autonomy. HR support is the most useful service from the CMO. | | The school reports that though there was originally a high expectation to adhere to the model, the CMO had not run a high school before and the school made a lot of changes toward 'what worked' for the school. Early 'heavy-handedness' by the CMO eventually evolved to allow school more autonomy. Challenges with school autonomy and CMO expansion continued into Y3, though there was alignment in definitions of success. | No data |
| LA | 2012-13 | Craig | The flagship sees the relationship as 'partner and oversight'. | In Y1 the school reports, 'What we're doing now basically is like two schools in one. We embrace that.' School and CMO define success the same way. There is a lot of 'history and respect' between the school and the CMO. Alignment in style and practice is rated a '10'. No drawbacks to affiation with the CMO, support for leader is an 'A'. | In Y2, while still a 'close' relationship with many shared aspects (data days, PD, etc.), Craig reports having grown more independent. The school reports very high alignment to flagship in all areas of practice. | Y3, 'The relationship is the same [fine], but Craig is working to acquire an independent identity, but within the FOK framework.' CMO and school still 'basically' view success the same way. The school notes the struggle to perform as well academically as the flagship | The CMO remains a very present and available support through Y4. | | The school and CMO are very closely aligned in Y1-'like two schools in one', which is embraced in Y1. However, while the relationship remains close, there is an effort to create an independent identity for Craig in Y2 and Y3. The CMO remains a very present and available support through Y4. | CEO never stops being highly visible in schools but also evolves in understanding need for centralized fcns esp in data and finances, esp to do turnaround work. |
| LA | 2012-13 | Crescent Leadership Academy | The CMO is a 'managing partner for physical facilities' and an oversight and resource. | In FY1 the school had a lot of flexibility to revise the 'model' since they were inherently different from others in the network (only non-residential school). In the fall, support for the school leader from the CMO ranges across respondents from C to A. Alignment with CMO is rated '9'. In the spring, as the school brings in a new leader, alignment is rated 8 and support a B. | School in Y2 reports no major changes from Y1, but says 'it's not really a partnership because they run us, dictate everything we do'. Success is defined the same way and school reports high alignment. | School in Y3 reports no major changes. School defines success across a wide array of areas, both academic and social-emotional, and the CMO defines success in the same way-- the school feels "120% supported'. 'CMO understands the challenges and are supportive and responsive'. School appreciates the history and strength of the CMO. | CMO is very supportive: 'ROP is synonomous with vision and mission.' | | School reports high alignment and strong-to-very-strong support from the CMO even across leadership changes. In Y2 the leader states that the CMO is more of a dictator than a partner in running the school. The Prinicpal in Y3 and Y4 has a very strong relationship with the CMO and values their support, knowledge, and vision/mission. | |
| LA | 2012-13 | John McDonogh | No Flagship | The school reports both an expectation to adhere to CMO practices and 'full flexibility' to adapt in Y1. | In Y2, the CMO doesn't rely on the expertise they have in the school and 'They make decisions unilaterally and non-strategically.' By the end of the year the school feels the CMO 'failed them at every turn.' The school has stopped going to CMO meetings, describing the relationship as increasingly 'contentious'. | | | | At school opening the relationship between school and CMO appeared to be positive, but by the end of Y2 the school reports that the CMO has 'failed them at every turn' and that the relationship is 'increasingly contentious'. | |
| LA | 2012-13 | McDonogh 42 | At the Flagship visit the CMO was not yet in existence, but was only a board. The flagship principal transitioned to become the CMO CEO. CMO involvement is rated highly (to the extend that nascent functions are present in the flagship). | In Y1 the school reports both an expectation to adhere to CMO practices and the ability to revise. During the incubation year there was a lot of PD and frequent meetings with the ED. Alignment with the CMO in the fall is rated 10 and there are no reported drawbacks to affiliation with the CMO, but by spring support from the CMO is rated C. 'Support for leader from CMO' is rated highly across respondents. | Y2 sees no major changes in the school's relationship with the CMO even with a leadership change. The relationship is 'very consistent and supportive', a 'great partner'. The CMO gives the school 'very high autonomy.' School reports strong alignment with CMO in definition of success and overall vision/values/leadership areas. CMO supports SPED, Curriculum, and observations. | School in Y3 reports no major changes with the CMO relationship. The relationship is 'very consistent and supportive' 'it's a team'. CMO and i3 Principal view success the same--'it's data--heavily!'. 'Choice {Foundation} pulled us together and has helped us get the school on track'. | The school reports 'CMO is here all the time, every day.', and 'Network PD's help communicate the mission monthly.' | | In Y1 there is a high expectation to adhere to the model and strong support from the CMO (PD, frequent meetings). Though there are multiple leadership changes, the school consistently reports that the CMO remains a strong, supportive partner (SPED, curriculum, observations) and alignment between school/CMO is high. | Heavy push on academic supports in 14-15 because of transition to CCSS but otherwise CMO intentionally focused on balance of autonomy vs CMO fcns. By 15-16, centralized fcns operate in support of schools and include academics, PD, culture, and stewardship of the model/vision |
| TN | 2012-13 | Brick Church Middle School | The school views the CMO as a partner. The original flagship principal moved to become principal of the i3 school. The school and CMO think of themselves as a "we". | CMO support for the school leader is rated between A and B'. There is both an expectation to model the flagship and freedom to revise. The school gives the CMO style and practice alignment with the school an '8'. | In Y2, there is 'no change' reported in the relationship. However, the CMO and school are not aligned in definitions of success; while the school is focused strictly on academics, the CMO has other culture and attendance priorities. | Y3, the school reports that the relationship has gotten stronger as the CMO has matured and become more sustainable. School reports that both school and the CMO look primarily at MAP growth to define success. | CMO helps connect the mission of the school with outside communications. | | There is a strong relationship between the CMO and the school that continues to grow as the CMO matures (ed note: elsewhere, we have the school suggesting that the CMO's growing pains made for difficulties in the school-CMO relationship, particularly around roles/responsibilities). There is both an expectation to model the flagship and freedom to revise. Alignment in style and practice fluctuate over time, dipping in Y2 but becoming stronger again in Y3. The CMO is a valued support and partner. | CMO as keeper of both capacity and vision, esp given risk of having so much of school success turn on the principal |
| TN | 2012-13 | Humes | Flagship describes the relationship as a 'support as opposed to 'top-down' leadership. this allows for autonomy. The vision and mission are the framework, but they give support.' Flagship rates 'support for leader' an A and reports that school and CMO define success the same. Creation of the CMO has been 'extremely beneficial', particularly in PD support. | School describes CMO as a partner, gives support a 'B' in fall and an 'A' in spring. The school has needed to add supports that the flagship did not have due to greater need (security, psychologist, etc.) | In FY2 the school says the relationship with the CMO is good, but says that the CMO is young and still learning. School reports they define success the same way. Tech resources from CMO are a top 'strength' and the CMO provides a lot of support with facility prep and SCS interface. | School in Y3 reports no major changes in the relationship from year to year, though there has been some variance due to frequent leadership turnover. School says the CMO is supportive. The school and the CMO define success the same way, though CMO looks more at outside elements (community partnerships, state goals, etc) than the school does. | The CMO provides support with branding, orientation. | | The CMO provides the school with significant amounts of support (technology, facilities, community outreach), but is also 'young and still learning'. The school describes challenges with CMO support due to greater needs at their school than those at the flagship. The school and the CMO define success in the same way even across leadership changes. | Centralized non-academic fcns plus taking a global, network wide view |
| TN | 2012-13 | KIPP Memphis Academy Middle | The flagship sees the CMO relationship as 'partner and resource', noting that the regional office has 'not very much daily presence in the school'. School and CMO view success the same way. | The school is expected to adhere to the model with KIPP training and development, school visits. The CMO is a partner, alignment between school and CMO is a '9'. Support for leader from the CMO gets an 'A' in fall but a 'C' in the spring. | School in Y2 reports no major changes with the CMO relationship. School describes the relationship as 'Very close. We have a clear understanding of who covers what.' The school and the CMO define success in the same way. | In Y3 the school has piloted more initiatives and been able to share them with other schools in the network. The school and CMO define success the same. The school characterizesthe relationship as 'very strong', saying 'KIPP Memphis provides support and autonomy.' | School reports that 'KIPP Memphis has a new executive director and head of schools, so the regional office has been gaining excellent traction to help schools be well oiled machines and to increase the strength of the instructional framework. This is the strongest regional vision we've had, we have more regional clarity than ever.' | | There is a strong expectation that the school will adhere to the KIPP model, with accompanying support and training. The relationship remains strong across all four years with high amounts of support and autonomy, and the school reports increased ability to share learnings across the network as the school matures. In Y4 the school reports, 'KIPP Memphis has a new executive director and head of schools, so the regional office has been gaining excellent traction to help schools be well oiled machines and to increase the strength of our instructional framework. This is the strongest regional vision we've had, we have more regional clarity than ever.' | Maintaining network wide focus on student performance via enhanced efficiency, including 14-15 re-org |
| LA | 2013-14 | Einstein Extension | The flagship's expectations of the i3 work are that 'there will be one school with two sites--everything at the new school will be modeled from Einstein'. The flagship feels well-supported by CMO. | Alignment between the school and CMO is given a '10' and support for the school leader an 'A'. There is a 'Very high expectation' to adhere to practices of flagship. The school reports, 'CMO staff splits time between two sites.' 'This isn't a second school; we're one school on two sites.' 'Professional working relationship that entails a lot of support.' | School says they have to be 'assertive' to ensure that the school gets the same resources and attention as the flagship-mostly because the CMO isn't always aware of the needs. Staff also 'feel like they aren't respected as much as main campus'. | The school reports there are no changes in the relationship with the CMO (despite a leadership change) and there is open communication. CMO is very supportive of school decisions about outreach to families. School and CMO view success similarly, though CMO puts a bit more emphasis on academic success. School still describes a 'great' relationship with CMO, with a good amount of autonomy and support. | | | In Y1 and Y2 there is little autonomy from the flagship school--most areas of the school organization are either borrowed directly from the flagship or built collaboratively with the CMO. There is a high expectation of adherance to the model and CMO support is mostly strong throughout the three years. The i3 school reports, 'This isn't a second school; we're one school on two sites', although there are some concerns in Y2 that the CEO doesn't give [the i3 school] quite the same level of attention and responsiveness as the flagship'. By Y3 the new principal reports a good balance of autonomy and support. | 14-15 struggled to install and execute centralized fcns, but better in 15-16. CEO still has strong presence in schools. |
| TN | 2013-14 | Cornerstone Lester | Level of involvement from the CMOrated a '9' or '10' and give CMO support an 'A'. Feedback from the CMO is 'very important'. School reports no drawbacks with the CMO- they 'have a wonderful relationship'. (note Flagship and i3 school Principal are the same person; Flagship principal will move to i3 school). School does not distinguish between school and CMO on the autonomy questions because they are one unit. | The school feels well-supported by the CMO; sees them as partner, oversight, resource. School reports, "we have a wonderful relationship. The CMO is really engaged in what's happening. They are helpful, working on improvement. Alignment of principal's style with that of the CMO rated 10. Level of support for leader rated A in the fall and a 'B' in the spring. There is flexibility to change the model. | In the fall the school says the relationship is good, though 'at times it's one-sided, with the focus on scores.' By spring the school reports that the 'separation of the CMO and the school has got to happen for the success of the school', saying that the CEO is getting in the way of success. | School has good communication with the CEO despite a leadership change. The school sees the relationship with the CMO as 'great'. There have been a lot of changes, growing pains with CMO expansion, working to keep good communication across all three schools. The CEO does much of the marketing as the 'face of the school'. There is still tension between autonomy and fidelity between the school and network. | | | The relationship between school and CMO is very close and supportive in Y1, but by the end of Y2 the heavy handedness of the CEO results in the departure of the founding principal. The school in Y3 describes a good relationship, but the CMO is strained by expansion and there is a 'tension between fidelity and autonomy'. | Centralizing to standardize across schools (as opposed to give more autonomy); challenges of centralizing without economy of scale. |
| TN | 2013-14 | Hanley | School gives a 'B' grade for CMO support, sees them as a partner, oversight, resource, and says feedback from the CMO is 'very important'. | School reports both an expectation to adhere to model and some flexibility to adjust. There are weekly walk-throughs with the regional director and instructional coaches. The school reports, 'The CEO is very approachable. There is an open door policy and a 24 hour response time policy for anyone in the organization.' Support for school leader from CMO is rated A. | School reports no fundamental changes, saying the relationship with the CMO is a good relationship. School reports, 'It's still super aligned but [the school has become] a more critical consumer.' The CMO is listed as one of the school's top strengths. | The school says, 'Aspire's entrance into Memphis was about taking the California Aspire philosophy wholesale, and it flopped.' There's a really big shift to do 'what works' regionally rather than sticking with the California flagship model. The school reports that they say 'we', not 'Hanley' or 'Aspire'. 'We ARE Aspire.' | | | There is a strong relationship, frequent communication, both flexibility and adherance to model that remain across the first three years, but by year three the school reports that the California model could not be successfully transferred to Memphis and that the school is making a lot of adjustments to do 'what works'. | 14-15 was a year of intentional strategy development to refine CMO model. By 15-16, CEO sees her job shifting to leader development bc strategic planning requires maintenance not start up one year later. |
| TN | 2013-14 | Klondike | Same Flagship as Humes | CMO supportis rated a B and alignment with the CMO a '9'. The CMO 'doesn't really understand elementary', but are being responsive. The CMO 'spends a lot of time in the buildingÉmicromanaging too much'. | The CMO is stretched really thin and the elementary school is not well-supported. In SY2, the school reports that the relationship is 'Not as good as it could be. There is not a lot of trust between the elementary level and the CMO (those at the school are not sure the CMO knows what they're doing when it comes to elementary). It would help to have someone at the CMO level who has elementary experience.' | Success is defined the same way by the CMO and the school. There is strong support from the CMO in developing a mission driven 'success plan'. There is less support, particularly around curriculum, than was expected and needed. The school reports 'Sometimes Humes and Klondike are treated like red-headed step children.' The school also reports that s the needs are different for them than for the flagship. | | | Klondike is never fully satisfied with CMO support across the three years of the study. The lack of CMO expertise to support an elementary school is mentioned across the years, and the high levels of student need are also repeatedly noted. Though there is a substantial level of alignment in mission, and CMO support with school success plans, the school continues to feel like Klondike and Humes are the 'red-headed step children' of Gestalt in Y3. | Centralized non-academic fcns plus taking a global, network wide view |
| TN | 2013-14 | KIPP Memphis Preparatory Academy | Flagship the same as KMAM | Alignment with the CMO is rated a '9'. Support for leader is a 'C'. The school says it 'takes time to get everything we need," but the school does like the KIPP 'power to lead' and reports that the school is not micromanaged by the CMO. Regarding the level of fidelity to the model vs. autonomy the school says, 'innovation is welcome but no, we don't change the model'. | There are adjustments to the relationship with the CMO, but no major changes. CMO and school define success the same. The school notes, 'In terms of culture we don't norm as much [with the CMO], but I think the definition is the same.' | By Y3 the CMO has become more of a support and less of a manager, which the school believes is good. There is open, frequent communication. CMO is a support. School and CMO view success the same way. | | | A strong sense of alignment in mission and goals remains across the three years, though the CMO support is not always as strong as the school would like. Communication is open and frequent. | |
| TN | 2014-15 | Freedom Preparatory Academy | Relationship between CMO and school has been that of a 'unified team'. School gives the relationship an 'A' grade and says there are no drawbacks to CMO affiliation. The school gives the level of support from a '10'. | The CMO serves as a partner and gives oversight; the school says the relationship is excellent and that the school is fully aligned with the CMO The school gives an 'A' for CMO support in the fall, but a 'B' in the spring. The model and mission are aligned, but there are adjustments for elementary school. The school has autonomy, primarily around curriculum, staffing, and vision setting. There are ongoing checks and honest conversation with the CMO. | The school says the relationship with the CMO has 'definitely' changed. The school feels there is a need for greater accountability with the expansion of the CMO and consistency across schools is a challenge. The school is aligned with the CMO in their definition of success, but there are 'large disconnects' in the relationship, particularly around HR policies and execution. | | | | Alignment between school and CMO is stronger in Y1 than in Y2. The leadership turnover from Y1 to Y2 uncovers challenges to maintaining strong HR policies and a lack of consistency and accountability as the CMO expands. | Early CMO vs school relationships poorly defined. |
| LA | 2015-16 | KIPP East Community Primary | Flagship the same as KBP | The school says the KIPP 'Power to lead' philosophy of school autonomy works well for them, that there is 'A good mix' of CMO/School leadership." The school reports 'We are kind of left to do our own thing. I think it comes from a place of trust. There is lots of autonomy, we reach out for help when we need it.' The school has benefited from the fact that KIPP Nola is more established now and stronger systems are in place for school growth, staff incentives, etc. In SY2, support for the school from the CMO slips, as the school expresses concern tha the CMO is closing the Kipp Daycare. | | | | | The Kipp 'Power to lead' philosophy of school autonomy works well for KIPP East. The school says it is 'a good mix' of CMO/School leadership. 'We are kind of left to do our own thing. It comes from a place of trust. There is lots of autonomy, we reach out for help when we need it.' The school has benefited from the fact that KIPP Nola is more established now and has stronger systems in place for school growth, staff incentives, etc. | |
| LA | 2015-16 | Wilson | No Flagship Visit | The expectation was that the flagship model would be closely followed. The CEO is highly involved. The flagship notes that they are evaluated 'every single day', but says they are very closely aligned. CMO is rated B on support to the school. | | | | | The expectation was that the flagship model would be closely followed. The CEO is highly involved. The flagship notes that they are evaluated 'every single day', but says they are very closely aligned. CMO is rated B on support to the school. | Inspire has strong CMO roles/resps definied bc of experience at other schools. Firm oversight role with tightly managed fidelity to model to accommodate HC gaps systemwide. |