Afton Partners

"𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐭𝐲. 𝐖𝐞’𝐥𝐥 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐧𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐥𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐭𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬." ~www.aftonpartners.com Our team LOVES to take on big, complex, thorny challenges. The task in front of us can feel daunting, and one of the most important things we do is put structure to the work. For me, most every initiative I lead - often with a commission or task force - kicks off with three essential elements: 𝗚𝗼𝗮𝗹𝘀, 𝗚𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗚𝘂𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘀. Importantly, these are always developed collaboratively and inclusively, aligned with Afton Partners philosophy on community engagement. 𝗚𝗼𝗮𝗹𝘀 (𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼 𝘄𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲?) We start by agreeing to what success looks like in practice. For me, this is about creating clear, compelling statements that we can rally behind. For example, when rethinking a statewide financial transparency initiative, goals were: ▪️Make resource allocation data readily accessible and understandable to communities; ▪️Empower LEAs and communities to assess and improve resource equity; ▪️Enable LEAs and communities to gain a better understanding of the relationship between student outcomes and financial resources; and ▪️Enable LEAs, schools, and the state to identify evidence-based best practices and opportunities to foster innovation between peers. 𝗚𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 (𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘄𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝘁𝗼𝗴𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿?) These are our process commitments in pursuit of goals. They shape everything from the tables we set to how we make decisions. Some key principles for that same initiative: ▪️ Commit to engagement and transparency in process and outcomes; ▪️ Always share financial data in context and in a digestible way; ▪️ Limit incremental burden for reporting entities; and ▪️ Foster collaborative, informed decision making through the process, prioritizing those that will implement and use the outcomes of this work. 𝗚𝘂𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘀 (𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀?) This is where we define non-negotiables in what’s ultimately developed, narrowing the aperture of the direction of the work. For our example initiative this started with: ▪️ Make clear connections to other SEA initiatives toward overall system goals; ▪️ Must not conflict with or be duplicative to federal reporting requirements; ▪️ Must work with existing accounting, data, and reporting systems; ▪️ Must work for the diversity of LEAs in the state; and ▪️ Must be structured to achieve the intent of establishing legislation. This framework might be simple, but it's tried-and-true for how I structure complex change initiatives. It provides clarity, helps us stay focused on what matters, aligns different stakeholders in the work, and gives us structure for difficult discussions that will inevitably arise along the way. What tried-and-true frameworks do you use to guide complex initiatives?

I don’t think this is an exaggeration: 𝗮 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗹 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲. Poor air, water, and food quality can biologically hurt kids’ growing bodies. Outdated acoustics and ventilation distract from what is being taught. Gym-less high schools limit opportunities. Underinvested libraries mean a lack of access to history, creativity, and technology. Teachers and administrators ought to have what they need to build safe, sustainable spaces. Which sounds obvious. So much so that this isn’t an issue in other developed nations. Some of my overseas friends get surprised that a company like Afton is needed. Thankfully, there have been some recent wins for investing in funding for school infrastructure. 🏫 One example: Orange County school district approved a half-penny tax. Proceeds will directly fund infrastructure improvements and maintenance for years. 💸 And our partners at Equitable Facilities Fund recently closed its latest raise of over $350 million of philanthropically supported "social bonds" which will serve facility needs low-income students and students of color in public charter schools. But we have a long way to go. And it matters. This week I saw an inspiring renovation of a movie theater that Gestalt Community Schools is developing for 1,200 PK-8 students in Memphis. They scaffolded their growth and related debt obligations over the last decade to make it happen. The state education funding policy reform in Tennessee helps. As does good market intelligence on demographic trends in the city. 𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝘀𝘂𝗲 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗹𝘀.

Ever heard the McDonald's milkshake story? McDonalds wanted to improve milkshake sales, and asked customers for feedback. Based on this feedback, they incrementally improved their milkshakes. But sales didn’t change. Then a researcher spent 18 hours in store and noticed 50% of milkshakes were sold before 8:30am. So they asked those customers, “𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 ‘𝗷𝗼𝗯’ 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗵𝗶𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗸𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼?" Turns out, commuters wanted something that would: 🥱 Keep them awake on their drive 🚗 Last the whole commute ✋ Be easy to consume one-handed 🕙 Keep them full until 10am They weren't asking the milkshake to be a better milkshake. The milkshake was competing with bananas and bagels for the "make my commute better" job. This is the “Jobs to be done” theory, shared by Clayton Christenson from Harvard. And 𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝘀𝗸𝘀 𝘂𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗮 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 ‘𝘄𝗵𝘆’ 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝘄𝗲’𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴. From another Harvard professor, Theodore Levitt, using a different analogy: “People don’t want to buy a quarter-inch drill. They want a quarter-inch hole.” Post-COVID, our school systems are facing a similar dilemma. We keep trying to “improve the milkshake.” Tweaking frameworks and programs and approaches based on real feedback, yes, but without checking our assumptions on what schools are for students, families, and communities today. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝗳 𝘄𝗲'𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻? Before students can even think about learning, schools are being asked to: ▪️ Support mental health and wellbeing ▪️ Provide a safe space for processing trauma ▪️ Serve as community resource hubs ▪️ Create stability in unstable times ▪️ Build social connections in an isolated world And this is on top of an ever-changing definition of academic purpose and success. In our recent DC school funding study (link below), we found schools aren't just “being hired” for core education anymore, but our funding systems haven’t caught up to this. In fact, we found that charter schools serving the highest-need students in DC spend less than half their budget on academics. Not because they don't value education, but because they're addressing these other critical "jobs" first. This recent headline in Chalkbeat brings it to life: “𝘉𝘦𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮: 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘕𝘠𝘊 𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘭𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘱 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘨𝘨𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘴" (link below). This reality must reshape how we think about school funding and supports. How we think about broader ecosystems and breaking down silos across agencies and programs. How we serve students. 𝗪𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻'𝘁 𝗸𝗲𝗲𝗽 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺𝘀 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗹𝘀 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗼 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗷𝗼𝗯 - 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗰𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀. The job description has changed. Shouldn't our approach change too?