HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 NS School Collaboration Study a memorandum of understandingDRAFT ~
Orange County Collaboration Initiative
2002 - 2003
Memorandum of Understanding
Purpose
This memorandum of understanding is between Orange County and the Institute of
Government, UNC -Chapel Hill. Its purpose is to secure the professional services of Dr.
Phillip Boyle, Associate Professor of Public Management and Government. Dr. Boyle
works closely with the N.C. Association of County Commissioners, the N.C. Carolina
School Boards Association, the N.C. League of Municipalities, and with county, school, and
municipal governing boards in public problem solving and decision making, including
collaborative problem solving involving multiple jurisdictions.
Background
Representatives from Orange County, Orange County Schools, and Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Schools met on September 18t" and October 31St to discuss collaboration between their
respective governing boards. These meetings grew out of earlier discussions about
possible areas of collaboration, as outlined in a February 1St memorandum from the County
Board Chair. The three governing bodies have agreed to work together with the assistance
of the Institute of Government.
Issues and Interests, Expectations and Concerns
In these meetings participants identified a number of issues, interests, expectations, and
concerns that both drive and restrain efforts to collaborate. These tended to fall into three
major themes: (1) conflicting interests, values, attitudes, and beliefs; (2) commitment to
collaboration and (3) potential benefits and outcomes.
Conflicting Interests, Values, Attitudes, and Beliefs
• Visible inequities in funding and opportunities are highlighted by rising expectations
for educational opportunity and outcomes for students in both school districts. For
example, the district tax by design creates inequity in per pupil local funding
prescribed by state law for school operations budgets.
• Simultaneous needs for new facilities and better use of existing facilities.
• Reducing class size while also trying to squeeze what we can out of the capital
budget.
• We need to recognize our own legitimate self-interests and those of the other parties
and then pursue common interests and common outcomes.
• Values and deeply held beliefs may help or hinder collaboration based on the
degree of consonance among the participating parties.
DRAFT
• There is a sense among the boards that they are individually responsible and
accountable for issues such as students' access to opportunities, which makes the
idea of collaboration difficult.
• The school systems have obvious differences, but the differences may be perceived
as being greater than they really are.
• It's old news that there are differences -let's focus on commonalities.
• That this is not a prelude to merger -that's not what this group is trying to resolve.
• One participant has talked with a parent adamantly opposed to collaboration, almost
as if they'll be contaminated.
Commitment
• Collaboration is hard work -what will it take to keep people at the table long enough
to identify and act on real opportunities for collaboration?
• It is easier to tinker around the edges of collaboration than to tackle really important
issues. Achieving meaningful collaboration requires win-win outcomes for all
participants.
• Collaboration needs to be meaningful, not just something to say we're collaborating.
False collaboration could lead to mistrust of boards by constituents.
• The hope that something positive will come out of the process.
• Considerable ambivalence about jumping into the process because of doubts that
there will be a meaningful effort by all parties.
Potential Benefits and Outcomes
• We need to agree on the big picture outcomes for collaboration and to identify what
we want to accomplish (e.g., creating greater educational opportunities) before
deciding how to accomplish it (e.g., pursuing greater funding equity).
• We need to establish short-term objectives and achieve some initial short-term
progress yet keep in mind that collaboration is a long-term and ongoing process.
• How do we measure success, what are the boundaries of this effort, and what are
reasonable timeframes?
• How might this effort contribute to student achievement?
• That all students in county have access to same programs.
• There should be measurable outcomes, such as student achievement, not just a
political exercise.
• Increase equitable educational opportunities that create a greater sense of
partnership among the jurisdictions and lead to more efficient, cost effective, and
better use of existing resources.
DRAFT
• Collaboration offers opportunities to share services that may be too expensive to
replicate, while also helping officials and citizens understand why it may be
important to replicate some services.
• This effort should result in real partnerships that benefit all students and jurisdictions
in terms of efficient use of resources and cost effectiveness, equitable educational
opportunities, and a sense of "being in this together."
Next Steps (March -August 2003)
1. Identify Participants and Schedule Initial Working Session
• Participants must include board chairs and executives. Key folks will need to
commit to participate. It's important that they be a part of conversations and
discussions about values, beliefs, and goals.
• We may want to consider including a second board member (e.g., vice chairs,
past chairs, or an interested member) and some assistant or associate managers
and superintendents. In addition to building a greater sense of shared purpose,
the working group will benefit from having additional perspectives.
• Timing is a factor. Board chairs and executives need to be in place.
2. Identify Interests, Barriers, Values, and Goals
• Given the issues and interests identified above, the working group's first set of
tasks should be to discuss their individual interests, define criteria for what
successful collaboration looks like, describe what has worked well or not so well
in previous collaborative efforts, and identify barriers to successful collaboration.
• The working group can then identify the .key values that reflect their interests in
public education, and create shared goals for this initiative.
3. Develop Recommendations and Evaluation Criteria
• Once this has been accomplished, the working group can use its goals and
values to identify the outcomes they agree to work together to achieve. These
will most likely be broad value-based goals.
• The next steps involve identifying, or engaging additional staff in identifying, a set
of specific recommendations that satisfy the values and goals agreed to by the
working group.
• The working group will also develop criteria or measures for evaluating the
success or outcomes of these recommendations.
4. Engage Governing Boards and Administrative Officials
• The respective governing bodies should be kept informed about the efforts and
progress of the working group.
• The working group should also coordinate with school administrators who are
proceeding with the charge from their boards to move forward on collaboration.
• Using its goals, values, and criteria for successful collaboration as a guide, the
working group should jointly select specific recommendations and present these
recommendations at a joint meeting of the respective boards.
5
DRAFT
• Based on feedback from each governing board, the working group will identify
priority recommendations for implementation.
5. Implement and Evaluate Recommendations
• The working group will oversee existing or new task forces responsible for
implementing the final recommendations and evaluate how well implementation
satisfied the goals and values.
• The implementation task forces will engage other representatives and
stakeholders as appropriate.
Compensation for Professional Services
Dr. Boyle will work with Orange County, Orange County Schools, and Chapel-Hill Carrboro
Schools to carry out Steps 2, 3, and 4 as described above. He will work with the county
and school systems on this project for a period of six months, from March 2003 through
August 2003. Orange County agrees to pay the Institute of Government $20,000, which
includes an estimated 20 - 25 days of dedicated time and administrative expenses such as
copying, mailing, telephoning and local travel.
The Institute of Government shall submit invoices to the county outlining compensation and
reimbursement expenses pursuant to this memorandum of understanding. Contact
information for the appropriate financial official is provided below. Invoices shall be paid
within 30 days of receipt. The parties may modify, extend, or terminate this memorandum
of understanding by mutual consent.
Contact Information for County Financial Official
Name: Title:
Address:
Telephone: Email:
Authorizing Officials
For Orange County:
John M. Link, Manager
For the School of Government:
Date
Michael R. Smith, Dean Date