Six past engagements.

Statewide student transportation efficiency benchmarks and operational standards

A statewide agency needed evidence-based operational standards and efficiency benchmarks for K–12 student transportation that would work across very different operating realities: large urban districts, small rural districts, and state-chartered charter schools, in a state where a single bus route can run longer than some states are wide.

We built a representative sample across five geographic regions, capturing variation in district size, governance structure, delivery model, and Native American-serving contexts. We reviewed governing statute and regulation alongside benchmark documents from other states, then designed and administered a seven-domain survey instrument covering route design, fleet management, staffing, fiscal practice, safety and compliance, technology and data use, and special education transportation.

Responses were normalized to a common scale and scored using reproducible Python-based analysis. Examining question-level means alongside their variance let us distinguish between two very different problems: broad statewide weaknesses affecting nearly every respondent, and uneven capacity gaps where some organizations were managing an area well and others were not. Those require opposite responses, and conflating them is how statewide mandates end up making things worse.

• Benchmark framework expressed as peer-group ranges rather than single statewide targets
• Proposed operational standards framed for reflection and peer comparison, not compliance enforcement
• Twelve options of model guidance and contract language, including contractor data accountability
• A step-by-step decision framework for assigning route-level and student-specific support staff
• Full survey instrument and response data published as appendices for independent review

Field validation and pilot design following practitioner interviews

Before the standards framework went anywhere near statewide rollout, we took the draft back to the people who would have to live under it. Structured interviews with operations directors — including participants from the original survey and additional respondents who had not been involved — tested whether the methodology held up.

It did. Participants did not meaningfully challenge peer-group ranges, local-context interpretation, or the non-punitive framing. What they raised instead were implementation questions: what transportation actually costs by service model, how eligible ridership differs from actual ridership, what data a contractor is willing to hand over, and what technology is worth adopting when connectivity is unreliable. The conversation moved from is the framework right to how would this work here — which is the outcome a validation phase is supposed to produce.

We rewrote the implementation guide around that feedback and designed a field pilot as the bridge to an implementation-ready framework: a small, intentionally diverse cohort of local education agencies, tested through discrete modules rather than one undifferentiated study.

• Pilot modules for true-cost capture, ridership verification, contractor transparency, and specialized transportation
• A common cost template covering allocation, local supplementation, labor, contractor invoices, and activity service
• Requirement that every pilot module produce a decision — a guidance update, procurement specification, or revised benchmark — not just a finding
• A recurring agency-practitioner learning loop and a standing director advisory role

Pooled-fund design and stakeholder engagement

A collaborative of private funders and public agencies was preparing to launch a three-year pilot pooling philanthropic, state, and federal dollars to expand work-based learning and career pathways. Before committing, they wanted the design shaped by the people who would apply to it and be evaluated by it.

We convened community conversations spanning funders, grantees, educators, and students, and structured the sessions around specific decisions the collaborative had to make — application timing, eligibility criteria, reporting burden, grantmaking policy, and how success would be judged. Contributions were analyzed thematically and reported without attribution.

• Recommendations on Q&A cadence, deadline timing, and eligibility criteria accommodating organizations of very different sizes
• Grantmaking policies addressing conflict of interest, recusal, disclosure, and independent observation of the review committee
• A transparency standard covering published rubrics, scoring processes, and direct feedback to unsuccessful applicants
• An evaluation approach built on goals agreed at application rather than reverse-engineered at closeout
• Proposed grantee learning network and common reporting form to cut duplicated reporting effort

K–12 education strategy evaluation

A foundation with a substantial K–12 portfolio needed an honest read on whether its strategic plan goals still matched conditions on the ground — and where its next dollars would do the most good.

We produced a landscape analysis of the state's education environment covering student achievement trends, chronic absence, educator workforce and vacancy data, teacher preparation pathways, and the litigation and policy pressures shaping the system. Where the evidence was genuinely inconclusive, we said so rather than manufacturing confidence — including on questions where widely cited national findings turn out to rest on thin or mixed research.

Against that backdrop we evaluated the foundation's existing goals and built a rated portfolio of funding opportunities. Each was assessed on its evidence base, potential impact, and a consistent set of indicators — support and advocacy, community history and value to the field, equity, timeliness, and availability of co-funding partners — with recommended evaluation metrics attached so the foundation could tell later whether an investment had worked.

• Evidence-graded opportunity portfolio separating research-backed programs from promising but unproven ideas
• Recommended evaluation metrics for each opportunity, defined before funding rather than after
• Consistent indicator ratings enabling direct comparison across dissimilar investments
• Recommended adaptations to existing strategic plan goals

First-year data review and impact reporting

A statewide collective completing its first year of school-based behavioral health work had collected a great deal of data — training assessments, participation records, site-level activity — and needed to know what it actually showed before publishing an impact report.

We worked iteratively with the client, producing an internal data review used for reflection and planning ahead of the public report. That sequencing matters: it gave the organization a private space to see weak spots in its own collection design and fix them for year two, rather than discovering them in a published document.

• Internal year-one data review supporting reflection and planning for subsequent years
• Published first-year impact report and evaluation analysis
• Identification of collection gaps to close before the next reporting cycle
• Supporting policy development and advocacy analysis

Student-outcomes-focused governance coaching

School boards drift into operations. It is the most common governance failure in K–12, and it is usually well-intentioned — a board that cannot see student outcomes clearly will manage the things it can see, like bus routes and personnel decisions.

Through a statewide training program, we coached board presidents, superintendents, and school administrators using an internationally recognized coaching model. Sessions concentrated on strategic planning, interpreting data honestly, setting goals specific enough to be monitored, and building a progress-monitoring cadence that keeps board attention where it belongs.

• Paired board president and superintendent coaching on shared governance goals
• Training on data interpretation, goal setting, and progress monitoring
• Leadership development for administrators moving into senior roles