Clark County School District 2020 Comprehensive Evaluation ...

Clark County School District 2020 Comprehensive Evaluation

Assessment Report

Thomas L. Alsbury, EdD Professor, Northwest University

President, Balanced Governance Solutions™

Lola Brooks October 7, 2020

Reference 3.02 (B) of 116

1

October 2020

About the Researcher

Consultant/Trainer Thomas L. Alsbury is founder and president of Balanced

Governance Solutions and served for 19 years as a Professor of

Educational Leadership at Iowa State, North Carolina State and

Seattle Pacific Universities. He served 18 years as a former high

school science teacher, principal, and district administrator and for 8

years as Trustee of the national UCEA Center for Research on the

Superintendency and District Governance. He is currently professor

and Trustee of the educational leadership program at Northwest

University. Dr. Alsbury is listed as the foremost expert on school

governance by the Associated Press and has consulted, trained, and

evaluated boards on school governance issues in 12 countries and

across the United States. He has over 50 publications on school

board and superintendent research. His book “The future of school

board governance: Relevance and revelation” earned Dr. Alsbury

the UCEA Culbertson Award. His 2015 book by Harvard Press entitled Improving local school

board governance: A Balanced Governance approach introduces Dr. Alsbury’s Balanced

Governance™ model and is the top selling School Board book in the U.S. The Balanced

Governance™ model is unique amongst school governance models, in that it is developed

from 50 years of research on exemplary school boards and the findings from two recent

national studies of school board members.

Contact Information

Balanced Governance Solutions™

Thomas Alsbury

5430 Lake Alice Rd. SE

Fall City, WA 98024

Ph. 919-961-3496

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.balancedgovernancesolutions.com


2

October 2020

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3

Project Overview ....................................................................................................................... 4

Evaluation Methods ................................................................................................................. 5

Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………..6-7

Recommended Protocols…………………………………………………………………..8-9

General Data Description ................................................................................................. 10-13

Meeting Length ............................................................................................................... 10-11

Number of Scheduled Topics .......................................................................................... 12-13

Time Management ............................................................................................................. 14-16

Item Typology ....................................................................................................................... 14

Board Discussion Categories ........................................................................................... 15-16

Direct vs. Supportive Instructional Topics ...................................................................... 17-19

Goal Monitoring vs. Management Inquiry ..................................................................... 20-21

Bridging vs. Bonding ......................................................................................................... 22-24

Balanced Governance Standards: Overall Analysis ....................................................... 25-26

Balanced Governance: Board Standards ........................................................................ 27-75

Standard #1 ...................................................................................................................... 28-31

Standard #2 ...................................................................................................................... 32-34

Standard #3 ...................................................................................................................... 35-39

Standard #4 ...................................................................................................................... 40-44

Standard #5 ...................................................................................................................... 45-48

Standard #6 ...................................................................................................................... 49-52

Standard #7 ...................................................................................................................... 53-56

Standard #8 ...................................................................................................................... 57-59

Standard #9 ...................................................................................................................... 60-63

Standard #10 .................................................................................................................... 64-66

Standard #11 .................................................................................................................... 67-72

Standard #12 .................................................................................................................... 73-75

Effective Individual Board Member Practices ............................................................... 76-86

Recommended Protocols…………………………………………………..…………..87-115

1. Formative Strategic Goal Monitoring.............................................................................. 87-88

2. Board Reporting Template .............................................................................................. 89-90

3. Board Community Engagement ............................................................................................ 91

4. District Strategic Teaming ............................................................................................... 92-96

5. Balanced Advocacy Engagement Practices ................................................................... 97-102

6. Reporting & Monitoring Policy Example ................................................................... 103-111

7. Balanced Oversight ..................................................................................................... 112-115


3

October 2020

Introduction The United States has just passed out of an era of unprecedented change in the governance of

education challenging the very existence of local school governance by elected Boards. In

addition, national culture now no longer presumes trust toward governing bodies and a

growing segment of our communities call for the abolition of traditional systems, including

local school boards. At the very least, community members and parents call for increasing

accountability for the learning of all students. In addition, Boards are being pressed to take

formal stances on political and social positions previously thought outside the scope of school

boards. The result has been a dramatic

increase in pressure on governing school

boards to improve performance, address

social issues, and press for a more active

role in school district processes. Likewise,

superintendents are no longer enjoying

presumed trust and traditional approaches

with school boards are no longer effective.

Plainly stated, school board members are

demanding more information on school

district processes and a more involved role

in oversight than they have in the recent

past. The recent cultural shift creates an

urgent need for school boards and

superintendents to clearly understand the evolving governance role of the board as it relates to

the oversight of efforts to improve student learning and address social issues. A school board

should not only engage in a meaningful and comprehensive summative self-assessment but

should employ external evaluation that is both summative and formative.

Balanced Governance™ Metrics for Measuring Effective Board

Performance: Evaluation metrics used in this report include 6 major areas:

Descriptors of board roles and responsibilities. Current practice of highly effective boards nationally. 12 standards of highly effective school boards. 10 school board member practices supporting effective district performance. Goal Progress versus Management Inquiry Direct Instructional topics versus Supportive Instructional topics.

All 6 areas in this report are measured and benchmarked against the highest performing school

boards as measured by boards that successfully support improved student learning.


4

October 2020

Project Overview

Benchmarking Constructs The benchmarking used in this report is a school board effectiveness model developed by Dr.

Alsbury called Balanced Governance™. Balanced governance is described as a school board

governance approach that discourages both board disengagement (sometimes called

“rubberstamping”) and overreach (a.k.a

micromanagement). Balanced Governance

describes a constructive role for the school

board in monitoring student outcomes through a

process called informed oversight. A board

engaging in Balanced Governance is one that

strives to not only set and monitor high end-

goals for student learning but is also

knowledgeable about the means used to reach

those ends. Balanced Governance™ equips

boards to better dialogue with community

stakeholders, and craft targeted policy language

that intelligently oversees formative progress on

adopted processes and programs.

Highly effective boards are characterized by their use of a Balanced Governance approach as

highlighted in programs like the Iowa Lighthouse training (Delagardelle, 2015, 2008); reports

on highly effective school board characteristics as described in the NSBA Center for Public

Education report (2011) and Oregon School Board Association Bridges to Achievement

Standards (OSBA, 2008); and substantive research on school board effectiveness (Alsbury,

2015, 2008; Blasko, 2016; Blissett & Alsbury, 2017; Homan, 2016; Honingh et al, 2020;

Walser, 2009). Constructs used as benchmarks in this comprehensive evaluation are based on

the collective of research-supported best practices and effective characteristics of highly

effective boards linked to a balanced governance approach and improving student learning.


5

October 2020

Evaluation Methods Clark County School District Board of Trustees requested an external comprehensive

evaluation of 3-4 selected school board meetings in the 2019-2020 school year. Data analyses

included in-depth observation and transcription analysis of 4 selected Regular Board

Meetings: November 14, 2019; June 18, 2020; June 25, 2020; and September 10, 2020. In

addition, 2 Special board Meetings on July 1, 2020 and July 29. 2020 were viewed. Board

meetings for in-depth analysis were selected after scanning all regular board meetings,

reviewing meeting agendas and considering recommendations from the Board liaison and

Board President.

In addition, all 15 Regular Board Meetings were viewed in order to confirm the

representativeness of the selected board meetings. The board meetings selected were found to

be representative of issues arising from the Boards self-assessment data. All 30 board meeting,

work session, retreat, and committee meeting agendas from January to September 2020 were

reviewed through a documentary analysis as a confirmatory measure to support conclusions

regarding the level of Goal Progress/Management Focus and Direct Instructional/Supporting

Instructional activity.

Videos of these board meetings were viewed by two researchers independently. A data

collection protocol was used including the six Balanced Governance metrics of effective

school board performance noted above. All benchmarking rubrics were supported by peer-

reviewed research described under Benchmark Constructs and cited in the Reference section

of this report.

School board actions on the videos totaling over 19 hours, were categorized and noted for

duration by both researchers using a constant comparative analysis methodology. In addition,

Dr. Alsbury viewed 40 additional hours of the 2 Special Board meetings noted above and

excerpts from all 15 regular Board meetings from January to September 2020. Meeting

evaluators met and compared analyses, yielding a 98% reliability. For the remaining 2% of

variance, researchers reviewed the videotape sections in question and negotiated a common

finding.

When data from Clark County School District Trustees are compared to national averages, and

high or low performing boards, comparatives are drawn from the 2010 NSBA National

School Board survey (Hess & Meeks, 2011), the 2013 International School Board Member

Survey (Alsbury, Unpublished), the 2017 Blissett and Alsbury study, Homan’s 2016

replication study of Alsbury’s 10 Board Member practices, and data from the Iowa Lighthouse

Studies (Delagardelle, 2008).


6

October 2020

Executive Summary The following is a summary of the recommendations to the Clark County school board to

move toward reaching benchmarks for high performing boards.

Most Urgent: Higher Priority Improvement

Engage in activities and actions that reinforce and convey between board

members:

o relationship building,

o respect,

o civil discourse

o bonding

o balanced advocacy.

Review CCSD Governance Policies and follow them. Ensure that both the

Board and Superintendent understand and are committed to a Balanced

Governance approach.

Focus board questions and comments on balanced advocacy, eliminating

directly addressing other board members or board member comments.

Work to spend 70% of the board meeting discussing direct instructional

topics.

Focus board comments, questions, and requests for reports on goal monitoring

rather than management inquiry.

Schedule and intentionally manage Board Member external community

service and activity. Link service to strategic goals including consideration for

real or perceived equity issues.

Increase the time in Board meetings spent on the strategic plan progress:

o Review Strategic goals to ensure they are outcome goals and not

action goals. Focus on goal progress checking through outcome

measures and not lists of actions taken in hope of achieving goals.

o Creating a policy for the creation of a school board report template

with report content focused on goal progress checking and explicit

linkage to District Strategic goals. Report content should include at a

minimum:

a rating system where staff indicate progress on

targeted strategic goals.

measurable outcomes written in the strategic plan as

approved by the board delineated.

timeline and frequency for board presentation

including formative as well as summative checks.

desired format and type of data for presentation (e.g.

summary tables, qualitative cases, etc…)

recommendations for resource needs or extended

timelines to revise programs that do not meet goals.


7

October 2020

disaggregation of specified categories.

o Add a permanent section to the board agenda where one strategic goal

is the focus at each meeting with substantive time for discussion,

progress checking, and balanced advocacy that include:

how programs are leading to improvement or decline in

targeted strategic goals.

how leaders and staff plan to address areas where strategic

goals are not being met.

clarification on presented data.

Create and enforce protocols for pre-vetting of presentation content by the

superintendent and staff.

Consider the incorporation of a District Strategic Teaming model to address

organizational communication and implementation efficacy.

Conduct an annual self-assessment AND on-going external formative

assessment during implementation using the Balanced Governance Standards.

Focus on improving in areas marked Developing or Growth Required.

Conduct an annual self-assessment AND ongoing internal and external

formative assessment using the Balanced Governance Individual Board

Member practices. Focus on improving in areas marked Developing or

Growth Required.


8

October 2020

Recommended Protocols The following are recommendations for the CCSD Board that could help alleviate some of the

practices and issues that are preventing them from becoming a more effective and Balanced

board. All of these protocols are located at the end of this evaluation report and describe and

include specific language and tools that can be modified for District use.

1. Formative Strategic Goal Monitoring Highly effective Boards are characterized by the intentional selection of calendared reports

brought to the Board meetings. Thee reports are linked to specified Strategic goals. The

Strategic Goals identify measurable outcomes included in the reports in addition to intentional

content as directed by the Board in an approved report template. In addition, vetting protocols

are clearly delineated and enacted by the Superintendent and staff.

2. Board Report Template Frequently, frustration and conflict are caused by variation in the quality and content of reports

brought before the Board of Trustees. This leads to Board members feeling the need to

frequently request additional information and data to supplement the issued report. In addition,

this can prompt Board meeting questions that can appear as directives or criticisms of the staff

providing the report. The lack of a report template also creates confusion for staff members

who don’t know what the Board wants in the report. Finally, approving a Board report

template reduces the opportunity for individual Trustees to request extraneous information that

taxes staff resources and may be considered unnecessary or even damaging to the whole

Board.

3. Board Community Engagement Highly effective Boards work to ensure that they (a) provide the community information about

the decisions and programs of the school district, and (b) provide the school district with

advocacy among community and governmental entities that may benefit or further the goals of

the school district. In addition, Trustees sometimes inadvertently alienate important

community constituencies. This is largely due to a lack of intentional organization around

which groups to reach out to and which Trustees should participate in those groups.

Community concern and anger can arise from ignoring the careful acknowledgement of

community groups from all Trustees to avoid the perception of tokenism.

4. District Strategic Teaming In the Balanced Governance Model, Trustees seek to maintain balanced by being informed but

not over-reaching into the administrative role of the Superintendent. However, Trustees are

sometimes frustrated by community reports of consistent or systemic problems in the

operations and management of the school district. In the absence of active feedback loops,

some Trustees resort to micromanaging or self-monitoring of school operations, which leads to

negative relations and rarely solves the problems. District Strategic Teams serve to provide an

open horizontal organizational team whose purpose is to identify organizational system

communication and structural barriers and provides recommendation for improvements to the

superintendent. The Team also can serve as a feedback loop and provide calendared reports to

the Board.


9

October 2020

5. Advocacy Engagement Practices Highly effective Boards engage in advocacy for shared interests in ways that do not promote

polarization and conflict. This is achieved by developing advocacy protocols into Board

governance policy that provide guidance for Trustees on how to enact Balanced Advocacy.

Most Board training models discourage advocacy and special interests among Trustees, while

Balanced Governance supports Trustee advocacy conducted in a way that does not create

conflict and break relationships on the Board and in the community.

6. Reporting and Monitoring Protocols Trustees can approve policy that provides a transparent guide on how reports that come before

the Board are developed and vetted. This is a sample policy used by one highly effective

district for that purpose.

7. Balanced Oversight Often Board Presidents and Trustees are given little direct guidance on how to facilitate

effective Board meetings. Frequently, the lack of a shared and enforced set of protocols leads

to Trustee discussion and questions to create division and conflict on the board and among the

staff. These guidelines provide Balanced approaches to how Board discuss issues in board

meetings by focusing on probing questions, oversight, and redirection to the superintendent

rather than criticism or directives to staff.


10

October 2020

General Data Description

Meeting Length Board meetings viewed by the public are effectively the only consistent information available

to the community to shape their perceptions regarding the efficacy of the Board’s governance.

These perceptions shape the level of public trust and confidence in the Board’s leadership and

influence their support for the school district materially and socially. While board meeting

length is not a stand-alone indicator, it can be linked directly to the level of perceived

accessibility by the public. Board meetings over 3 hours not only are difficult to consume, but

information is hard to discover when scanning through video footage. In addition, incidents of

poor Board member practice increase as meeting fatigue sets in.

Clark County School District Trustee meetings are benchmarked for duration with the national

average as well as reports from high and low performing boards from data collected in 2010

and 2013.

Average Meeting Duration

Benchmark: Developing

Analysis Generally, higher performing boards are able to run their meetings in a focused and efficient

manner. Avoiding inter-board conflict, repetitive points, and a temptation to focus on the

management details of the school district, allows effective boards to keep their primary

broadcasted monthly meeting at around 2 to 2.5 hours in duration. Low achieving Boards hold

meetings that tend to be much longer (often due to over-reach or conflict) or much shorter

4.4

3.5

2.53 or Greater

2

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

Hours

Average Meeting Duration

CCSD National Urban

High Performing Boards Low Performing Boards

Low performing


11

October 2020

(often due to disengagement). The national average for the most similar Urban Boards is

approximately 3.5 hours. Most urban boards, including CCSD, hold more additional work

sessions, special meetings, or retreats during the month or prior to the primary broadcasted

meeting.

In addition, CCSD is unique in nationally in the extended board meeting time allowed for

Public Speakers as required by Nevada State Law.

In the 2016 CCSD Board evaluation, the average board meeting length was 4.6 hours. In

2020, Board meetings were still nearly 4.5 hours in length on average, with some board

meetings extending to nearly 7 hours. Meeting length has maintained even though the Board

eliminated major sections of the agenda (e.g. Board Reports, Superintendent reports,

recognitions) that comprised approximately 1 hour in each meeting.


12

October 2020

General Data Description

Number of Scheduled Topics The 15 Regular board meetings scheduled an average of 3.7 topics on average. Clark County

School Board Trustee meetings were benchmarked for topic number with the national average

as well as reports from high and low performing boards.

Number of Scheduled Topics per Meeting

Benchmark: Distinguished

Analysis The number of topics presented in a Trustee Board Meeting is very contextually linked and

thus standardizing this metric should be considered with caution. Generally, higher performing

boards focus their discussion on a few topics they believe represent the most significant

impact on improving student learning. Conversely, low performing boards tend to include

more topics; usually focused in the realm of management issues that have little or no influence

on student improvement, or on debating issues due to public conflict or inter-board conflict.

One common cause for the increase in topics in a Board meeting is discussion on pulled

consent agenda items. Items pulled from the consent agenda for discussion not only tend to

focus on management concerns, but can effectively circumvent the agenda planning and

prioritizing process by adding additional topics to the agenda that are not focused on the

District’s Strategic Goals. With no controls in place, pulled consent agenda items can

dominate a Board meeting and side-track the strategic focus of the Trustees.

3.7

54

8

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Hours

Number of Topics per Meeting

CCSD National Urban High Performing Boards Low Performing Boards


13

October 2020

The CCSD Board meetings included an average of 3.7 substantive topics per meeting. In the

2016 CCSD Board evaluation, nearly 6 topics were covered per meeting. CCSD Trustees

should continue to keep items pulled from the consent agenda for discussion to a minimum.

In order to stay focused on checking for progress on the District Strategic Goals, the Trustees

are encouraged to create an annual schedule of Board Meeting topics focused directly on

District goals. The Trustees should continue to monitor and revise governance policies that

continue an emphasis on progress checking on student learning and strategic goal topics and

minimize topics focused on management processes and efficiencies. While management

efficiencies are important, the Trustees should develop processes to address and pass on these

concerns to the superintendent or their designee outside of the formal Board meeting.


14

October 2020

Time Management

Item Typology The CCSD board meeting generally included opportunities for Recognitions, Board Reports,

discussions, comments; Public Comments; Staff Presentations; and miscellaneous items like

routine meeting requirements (e.g. reading the warrants, consent agenda, voting), and

transitions between topics.

The chart below indicates the average percent of a board meeting taken up by each of these

types of regularly occurring items. Notably, Board reports, discussion, and comment (55.1%);

comprised the greatest amount of time spent with Public Comments (21.9%) and Program

presentations (19.0%) taking a significant amount of time as well.

Benchmark: Proficient

55.1%

22.0%

19.0%

2.7% 1.3%

% Time Spent in each Board Meeting by Item Type

Board Reports, discussion,comment [55.1%]

Public Comments [21.9%]

Program presentations [19.0%]

Miscellaneous [2.7%]

Recognitions [1.3%]


15

October 2020

Benchmark: Growth Needed

Analysis Generally, higher performing boards spend up to 70% of their time discussing progress toward

Strategic Goals through the analysis and discussion of data provided in advance from the

superintendent and staff that focus on linking program elements to specific strategic plan

goals. As noted above, CCSD Trustees expended 77.1% of their time on Board report

presentations and Board Member discussions surrounding those reports.

While this measure is at a Distinguished level, most of the time discussion and comments

(88.6%) resulting from the reports was spent on management, operations, or governance issues

or inquiries (53.7%). Time spent on progress checking on Strategic Learning Goals (9.0%) is

well below standard. It should be noted that this result was influenced due to the need to

expend inordinate amounts of time on discussions surrounding school management issues

raised by the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent school closures and openings.

In the 2016 CCSD Board evaluation, Recognitions (27.4%) comprised the greatest amount of

time spent with Board Reports, discussion, and comment (26.3%); and Public Speaking

(20.0%) taking a significant amount of time as well. Overall, over half (55%) of the meetings

in 2016 were taken by topics that did not address progress monitoring of District Strategic

Goals or student learning issues.

On highly effective boards, board members avoid (a) giving recommendations to adopt or

eliminate specific programs, (b) reporting on or giving recommendations on operational and

management details on consent agenda items, (c) critiquing presentations, (d) requesting or

2.4%

9.0%

% Time Spent during Board Member Reports & Discussion

Recognitions [2.4%]

Management/Governance[88.6%]

Strategic Goals/StudentLearning Progress [9.0%]

88.6%


16

October 2020

debating operations and management details, and (e) minimize recognition time. Note that

many of these items are addressed through more effective meeting protocols rather than

through reaction or requests during the public board meeting. Consequently, in high

performing boards, superintendent and staff presentations and discussion/comments from the

board responding to these data and information consume about 70% of the meeting time.

The CCSD Trustees should focus meeting time on reviewing and discussing student

performance, district cultural, and district process data as it relates to checking for goal

progress on the District’s Strategic Goals. To assist in this process, Board agenda items should

be assessed and approved based on the 70% rule for goal progress checking. In addition, the

Board should be intentional (both in writing and verbally) in linking pre-planned agenda

items, pulled consent agenda items, requests for additional agenda items, and requests for data

to discuss in future meetings to specific Strategic Goals rather for management inquiry or

process efficiencies.


17

October 2020

Topic Analysis

Direct versus Supportive Instructional Topics Topics that were either scheduled, or time-consuming topics that emerged during discussion

periods, were analyzed. These topics were categorized based on whether they were considered

a direct instructional topic versus a supportive instructional topic.

Defining direct and supportive categories In general, a direct instructional topic is one that directly impacts student achievement, like a

new instructional method or improved curricular content. A supportive instructional topic is

one that plays more of a supportive role to improve instruction, like starting a new scheduling

system, or improving community access to student progress data. Both direct and supportive

topics are called instructional because, they both impact instructional improvement and

consequently student achievement gains. However, it is instructive to distinguish between the

two because high performing boards tend to focus more on topics that directly influence

student improvement.

Scheduled Topics Delineated as Direct versus Supportive Chart A and B report specific meeting topics and show them categorized as direct or

supportive instructional topics. Chart A shows the percentage of time spent on each topic. For

example, under Direct Instructional Topics, the board spent about 16.2% of all their meeting

time in a presentation and discussion of the program and policy equity and diversity issues.

Under Supportive Instructional Topics, the board spent about 22.5% on COVID-19 logistics.

Chart B provides the percentage of overall time spent on direct instructional topics versus

supportive instructional topics. Direct Instructional topics were discussed for 24.3% of the

meeting time with 75.7% spent on Supportive topics.

As stated above, highly effective Boards spend 70% of their time in the Board meetings

receiving and discussing reports on progress toward strategic goals, especially those directly

impacting student learning. Chart B can be useful by comparing the topics to the Districts

Core values of High expectations, Accountability, Equity, Innovation, Integrity, Leadership,

Customer service, and Communication. The topics should also be correlated to the District

Key Priorities of Student success, Personnel quality and sustainability, governance and

leadership, sound fiscal management, and Parent and community support.


18

October 2020

Chart A: Percent of the Meeting Time on Delineated Direct vs.

Supportive Topics

3.1%

5.0%

16.2%

1.8%

1.8%

2.5%

9.6%

4.5%

3.4%

3.5%

6.2%

9.2%

10.7%

22.5%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%

Student Learning

Special Education, ELL

Equity, Diversity

Interscholastic Association Rep.

Transportation

Governance

Legislative

School Renaming

Teacher Contract/Assoc.

Technology

Facilities

Personnel (HCM system)

Budget

COVID logistics

Scheduled Topics by Time Spent Overall

Percentage

Supportive Instructional Topics

Direct Instructional Topics


19

October 2020

Chart B: Percent of Total Time on Delineated Direct vs. Supportive

Topics

Benchmark: Needs Improvement

Analysis The charts above show that in the 4 selected Regular Board meetings from January-September

2020, the board spent (75.7%) of the meeting discussing topics that support instruction and

only (24.3%) on topics that influence instruction directly. It should be noted that a

documentary analysis of all 15 regular Board meetings resulted in a measure of 30% Direct

Instructional topics and 70% Supportive Instructional topics. High performing boards both

schedule and spend the majority of their time, on direct instructional topics with a benchmark

target of 70%.

Recommendation Clark County School District Trustees spent a limited amount of time discussing topics

directly influencing student learning (24.3%) affected significantly by the COVID-19

pandemic and the decentralization reorganization. The board improvement will result from

being intentional about scheduling agenda items, program/data presentation, and discussions

focused on topics of Direct Instructional progress.

The Board can continue to develop this metric to Meet Standard by board members continuing

to focus their comments and questions surrounding these topics more directly on the (a)

analysis of data, (b) how the program is meeting District Strategic Imperatives and Focused

Learner Outcome Goals, and (c) future plans to make the direct instructional elements of the

75.7%

24.3%

Time Spent on Supportive vs. Direct Instructional Meeting Topics

Supportive Instructional Topics

Direct Instructional Topics


20

October 2020

program better impact student improvement. Board member should continue to minimize

discussion of the management elements of the program that play a supportive function.

Board Role Analysis

Goal Monitoring versus Management Inquiry CCSD Trustee meetings included reports, comments, inquiries, and discussions from school

board members (26% of Board meetings). Board member reports, comments, questions and

discussion included a majority of time (69%) categorized as management and process efficacy

focused, with only 31% focused on reviewing, discussing, and addressing progress on

Strategic Imperatives and targeted Learner Goals.

Defining Goal Monitoring & Management Inquiry

Goal monitoring is described as comments, questions, or requests for reports that focus on the

following:

Describing measurable goals from the Strategic Plan.

Describing program details only to show how the program will reasonably meet the

stated goals and/or explain the alignment of new programs on existing programs.

Describing current performance outcomes in a way that is understandable and in

adequate detail to monitor progress.

Comparing a goal to the actual performance outcome so that gaps are evident.

Describing program detail only to explain the reason for the gap between the goal and

the performance outcome.

Providing alternative or revised programs. Providing program details only to show

how the new program or revision will improve on the outcomes.

Management Inquuiry is described as comments, questions, or requests for reports that focus

on the following:

Describing general program details not linked to measuring goal progress.

Describing general program details for the purpose of general interest.

Describing general program details for the purpose of responding to an external critic

or inquiry.

Describing general program details for the purpose of supporting a personal special

interest.

Describing general program details for the purpose of gathering evidence against

someone else’s personal special interest.

Describing general program details for the purpose of critiquing or giving advice on

program implementation.

Giving critique of advice on program implementation to any staff other than the

superintendent.


21

October 2020

Percent Time Focused on Goal Monitoring versus Management

Inquiry


Analysis A primary distinguishing characteristic of high performing boards is an intentional focus on

goal monitoring in all board discussions. The opposite of goal monitoring is described as

management inquiry. In its extreme form, management inquiry has been linked to declining

student achievement. The CCSD board engaged in goal monitoring in only 3% of their

discussion time in comments and questions. High performing boards engage in goal

monitoring 70% of the time.

Recommendations The CCSD Trustees should modify their current practice by scheduling program presentations

and reports from the staff and superintendent to focus on data overview of direct instructional

programs, avoiding placement of management items on the agenda. In addition, the Board

should continue to focus comments, questions, and inquiries around:

High expectations for student performance.

Monitoring the progress of student performance.

Requiring superintendent and staff presentations to provide program details that

explain progress, or lack of progress toward district strategic goals.

Requiring the superintendent and staff to develop and present program modifications.

Expecting the superintendent and staff to recommend the elimination of ineffective

programs

Expecting the superintendent and staff to recommend new programs for adoption.

3.0%

97.0%

Board Member Discussions byGoal Monitoring versus Management Inquiry

Goal Monitoring Management Inquiry


22

October 2020

Bridging Versus Bonding

Description The chart below indicates the number of incidents of what is described as bridging and

bonding incidents at the selected sampling of four CCSD board meetings. As indicated, the

CCSD board engaged in approximately 32 high bridging incidents (Recognitions, community,

staff supporting statements), 0 anti-bridging incidents, 7 high bonding incidents, and 51 anti-

bonding incidents in the meetings. High performing boards engage in an equal number of high

bridging and high bonding actions. The number of actions are not prescriptive, but

recommended to maintain a 1:1 bridging-to-bonding ratio with no anti-bonding or anti-

bridging incidents.

Critical Relationships: Bridging and Bonding

In studies of effective board leadership among all kinds of organizational boards, findings

emphasize the need for the board to gain social capital with the community they serve. The

study of “network connections” among individuals, groups and organizations is critical to

gaining support and stability. Most people understand that strong relationships help minimize

conflict and enhance collaboration and support for organizational goals.

One facet of networking that is often missed by boards is what might be described as internal

ties. Internal relationships among board members, as well as external relationships among

community stakeholders are both critical in determining overall board stability and

effectiveness (Saatcioglu & Sargut, 2014). Results indicate that a school board’s effectiveness

in accomplishing formal objectives is an inherently combined result of the degree of bonding

within the group—influencing trust, cooperation, and reputation among members—and the

degree of bridging with stakeholders on the outside—fostering the group’s creativity,

diversity, and capability.

Bonding: Internal Ties Internal dysfunction undermines productivity and aggravates turnover on school boards. High

levels of bonding in groups charged with formal governance perpetuate a civic culture that

enables efficient decision-making, mutual accountability and consensus. Conversely, in boards

with low levels of bonding, members may function as delegates of special interests in the

community rather than trustees charged with pursuing common goals that reflect shared

interests. Therefore, cultivating bonding within the board plays a considerable role in

facilitating educational progress. High bonding boards tend to be more effective not only in

representing and implementing community preferences, but in communicating the needs and

goals of the schools to the community when necessary. Finally, bonding lowers the risk of

divisive power struggles and enhances the ability to develop common beliefs about objectives.

Despite the importance of bonding, studies indicate that over-reliance on strong internal ties

may result in conformity to a degree that is counterproductive.

Bonding incidents were measured by interactions between board members that confirmed and

demonstrated openness, honesty, frequency, and willingness in information sharing. Relational

aspects include acknowledging others viewpoints and team spirit. Cognitive aspects of

bonding focus on shared vision, including similarity of views concerning the district’s purpose

and the degree of equal participation in board processes.


23

October 2020

Bridging: External Ties

For school boards, bridging is important in forming alliances, managing uncertainty, and

securing legitimacy in the eyes of external stakeholders. Strong relations between school board

members and state and federal agencies facilitate the transmission of ideas to reconcile

competing policy priorities. They are instrumental in securing financial and political support

as well. Frequent interactions with local, state, and federal officials also help align education

with other services, such as health, housing, and transportation. Finally, board member ties to

businesses and universities are often beneficial, as a source of innovative strategies for school

organization, financial support, and curricular adjustment and career choices for students.

Likewise, the board’s interactions with universities tend to be valuable in terms of new ideas

for educational practices, academic progress, and teacher and staff development.

In this study of the CCSD Board of Trustees, bridging incidents were determined by scheduled

topics, discussions, and supportive comments about external stakeholder, such as city officials,

state legislators, community leaders, parent groups and universities. Another indicator was the

development of partnership programs with external entities, like the provision of scholarship

monies from community organizations.

High Performing Boards High performing boards consist of members strongly connected to one another, with extensive

relations beyond the group. A board with high bonding and high bridging tendencies aligns

members inside the board, providing a more coherent vision for bridging outside the group.

Boards with high bridging and high bonding benefit from individual Trustee support of special

interests but still able to work together to accomplish shared goals.

Comparing Bridging and Bonding Incidents


35.6%

0.0%7.8%

56.6%

Bridging Events Anti-Bridging Events Bonding Events Anti-Bonding Events

Bridging versus Bonding Actions

Percent


24

October 2020

Analysis While there is no perfectly objective way to measure bridging and bonding incidents, the

benchmark associated with the highest performing boards favors boards that engage in high

levels of both bridging and bonding. The next most effective method is a board engaged in

lower bridging and higher bonding, followed by boards with higher bridging and lower

bonding. The profile of lowest performing boards is characterized by low bridging and low

bonding actions or the presence of anti-bonding or anti-bridging incidents.

In the selected board meetings, the CCSD Trustees exhibited high bridging incidents and anti-

bonding incidents, overall.

Recommendation The board should continue with High Bridging incidents while reducing the number of Anti-

bonding and increasing High Bonding incidents. This could be achieved by:

Refraining from making personal comments about other Trustees during the Board

meetings that ascribe intent or use pejorative terms like “disrespectful”. Trustees

should simply share their own position or describe their desired process or outcome

without comment about other Trustee position or intent.

Include opportunities for Trustees to interact through the reduction of procedures or

practices that tend to isolate Trustees or ascribe individual authority. This would

include encouraging all Trustees to participate in scheduled attendance of community

group activities and committees so that specific groups of stakeholders are not

presumed to be represented by a single Trustees.

Continue with formal external assessment (both Formative and Summative) and self-

assessment of Trustee practices using the Balanced Governance Standards, Individual

Board Member Practices, and Meeting Analyses.

Increase the number of agenda items, and time spent on presentation, analysis,

discussion, and redirection of Direct Instructional topics, and checking Progress on

Strategic Goals and Focused Student Learning Priorities.


25

October 2020

Balanced Governance Standards: Overall Analysis The following is an analysis from the Balanced Governance Standards survey assessing the

Trustee’s perception of their own and other Trustee ratings in each of the Standards overall.

Ratings were established by calculating the average score of the combined Indicators. Scores

for individual responses include:

Distinguished = 3 points

Proficient = 2 points

Developing = 1 point

Growth Required = 0 points

The average score for a Standard was calculated by adding the total points from all Trustees

and the Superintendent and dividing by the number of indicators to produce an average rating

score. Overall Standard assessment is determined using the following point scale:

Distinguished= 18-24

Proficient= 11- 17

Developing= 6-10

Growth Required= 0-5

Rank Order

#12. Budgeting and Financial Accountability: [Score = 11.8] Proficient

[2016 Score = 8.5] Developing

#1. Vision-Directed Planning: [Score = 7.9] Developing

[2016 Score = 11.4] Proficient

#6. Cultural Responsiveness: [Score = 7.3] Developing


#5. Using Data for Continuous Improvement:

[Score = 6.4] Developing to Growth Required


#2. Community Engagement: [Score = 6.2] Developing to Growth Required


#7. Culture and Climate: [Score = 5.5] Growth Required to Developing


#4. Accountability: [Score = 5.3] Growth Required


#11. Board Member Conduct, Ethics, and Relationship with Superintendent:

[Score = 4.5] Growth Required



26

October 2020

#9. Systems Thinking: [Score = 4.5] Growth Required


#3. Effective Leadership: [Score = 3.8] Growth Required


#8. Learning Organizations: [Score = 3.6] Growth Required


#10. Innovation & Creativity: [Score = 2.8] Growth Required

[2016 Score = 6.6] Developing to Growth Required

Other Statistics

Most Low Indicators:

Standard #3 Effective Leadership

Standard #10 Innovation & Creativity

Lowest Single Indicators:

Standard #3, Indicator 6

Standard #4, Indicator 2, 9





Standard #10, Indicator 4, 5

Standard #11, Indicator 1, 2, 3, 8

Highest Single Indicators:

Standard #4, Indicator 7 Proficient

Standard #6, Indicator 2 Proficient

Standard #12, Indicator 1, 2 Proficient


27

October 2020

Balanced Governance Board Standards

Goal(s): The 12 Balanced Governance Board Standards include a focus on the school board and district

goal of developing a culture supporting improved student performance in addition to

management and operational efficiencies.

Below the Clark County School District Trustees conducted a self-assessment on the 12

Balanced Governance Standards and each of the Indicators revised by the Trustees to best

describe those Standards for the Clark County District. The Standards and Indicators are all

considered equally important to effective governance.

The data below were derived from Trustees and the Superintendent rating the Board on each

of the Standards and Indicators. The following proficiency levels were employed on the

survey:

Distinguished

Proficient

Developing

Growth Required

When evaluating the overall Standard, the Board can regard a majority number of

Distinguished and Proficient marks on Indicators to be an area of Meeting Standard.

Conversely, Standards showing a high number of Developing or Growth Required markings

indicates an area the Board may want to identify the concerns and address.

In addition, marks that are spread across the 4 response options often represent a disconnection

among Board member perceptions of the performance of the whole Board.

The Board is encouraged to discuss ways to improve in areas marked as Developing or

Growth Required OR standards with broadly diverse responses. Indicators can provide more

specific guidance on areas of improvement needed.


28

October 2020

Standard #1: Vision-Directed Planning The Boards engages community and staff in the development of a shared vision focused on

student learning. The Board ensures that the vision is the foundation of the mission and

strategic goals that direct board policy-making, planning, resource allocation and activities.

Indicator #1: The board collaborates with the community to articulate

core values and beliefs for the district.

Indicator #2: Board members can clearly articulate the vision and

strategic goals of the district.

2

4

1

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

3

1

4

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


29

October 2020

Standard #1: Vision-Directed Planning

Indicator #3: The Board collaborated with the Superintendent to

develop long-range strategic goals for improving student learning.

Indicator #4: The board regularly monitors the progress of strategic

goals focused on improving student learning.

3

3

1

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

1

4

3

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


30

October 2020


Indicator #5: The board adopted a budget that aligned resources to the

District vision and strategic goals.

Indicator #6: The board establishes and models a culture of high

expectations for all students.

1

3

4

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

5

1

2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


31

October 2020


Indicator #7: The Board promotes a vision and expectation for

excellence beyond the present performance.

Results:

This standard was ranked 2nd of the 12 Standards and given an overall rating of

Developing. This area was rated as Proficient in 2016. The following results

summarize rating on Standard 1.

Rating of Proficient for Indicator 5.

Rating of Developing for Indicators 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Rating of Grow Required for Indicators 6 and 7.

Split response for Indicator 3.

5

2

1

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


32

October 2020

Standard #2: Community Engagement The Board recognizes that all members of the community are stakeholders in the success of

their schools. The Board engages the community using a reciprocal advocacy process that

creates and sustains meaningful conversations, system connections, and feedback loops across

the breadth of their community. The Board supports collaborative partnerships and new types

and levels of community participation in schools.

Indicator #1: The board promotes practices that solicit input and

involvement from all segments of the community.

Indicator #2: The board ensures that vision and goals are

collaboratively developed with input from staff, parents, students and

the broader community.

3

4

1

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

3

4

1

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


33

October 2020

Standard #2: Community Engagement

Indicator #3: The board recognizes and celebrates the contributions of

school and community members to school improvement efforts.

Indicator #4: The board is responsive and respectful to community

inquiry and feedback.

5

1

2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

4

2

2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


34

October 2020

Standard #2: Community Engagement

Indicator #5: The board advocates for public policy that supports

education through relationships with community leaders, city and

county government officials and state legislators.

Results:

This standard was ranked 5th of the 12 Standards and given an overall rating of

Developing. This area was rated as Developing in 2016. The following results

summarize ratings on Standard 2.

Rating of Proficient for no Indicator.


Rating of Grow Required for Indicator 3.

Split response for Indicator 3 and 4.

1

6

1

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


35

October 2020

Standard #3: Effective Leadership The Board practices and supports leadership that is proactive, integrated, and distributed. The

Board establishes focus, direction, and expectations that foster student learning. Across

education system, the board ensures the development and implementation of collaborative

leadership models and practices guided by student learning goals. Within the district, the

board ensures the alignment of authority and responsibility so that decisions can be made at

levels closest to implementation.

Indicator #1: Board members are visible in the community.

Indicator #2: Board members develop professional community

relationships to improve student learning and opportunities for

students.

3

5

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

4

3

1

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


36

October 2020

Standard #3: Effective Leadership

Indicator #3: Board activities, analysis and decision-making are aligned

to vision and strategic goals.

Indicator #4: The board solicits input from multiple sources to assist in

making informed decisions.

5

3

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

3

5

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


37

October 2020


Indicator #5: The Board establishes and sustains relationships with

community leaders, city and county government officials, and state

legislators.

Indicator #6: Board members model an empowering leadership style.

3

5

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

7

1

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


38

October 2020


Indicator #7: The board enacts strategic goals and policies to define

hiring practices that ensure employees fit into the culture and core

values of the district.

Indicator #8: Board members promote change through dialogue and

collaboration.

5

2

1

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

5

3

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


39

October 2020


Indicator #9: Board members understand and are knowledgeable about

school improvement initiatives and their role in supporting those

initiatives.

Results:


Growth Required. This area was rated as Developing in 2016. The following results



Rating of Developing for no Indicator.

Rating of Grow Required for all Indicators.

5

3

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


40

October 2020

Standard #4: Accountability The Board holds high expectations for the learning of each and every student and holds

themselves and the District accountable for reaching those results. The board provides

strategic direction in the development of the District’s mission, vision, and goals. The Board

adopts policy and resources that align with District’s strategic vision and goals. The Board

monitors and holds accountable the superintendent to implement the District’s strategic vision

and goals.

Indicator #1: The Board ensures funding to implement accountability

measures.

Indicator #2: The Board regularly reflects on its performance and

makes substantive change based on the results of a self-evaluation.

2

5

1

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

7

1

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


41

October 2020

Standard #4: Accountability

Indicator #3: The Board models a culture of high expectations

throughout the District.

Indicator #4: The Board’s priority and focus are on the student learning

and student success in alignment with the District’s strategic goals.

4

3

1

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

6

2

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


42

October 2020


Indicator #5: The Board ensures the budget aligns resources based on

student learning priorities.

Indicator #6: The Board supports rewards, consequences, and

recognition systems to encourage advancement of the District’s strategic

goals.

3

3

2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

3

4

0

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


43

October 2020


Indicator #7: Disaggregated student results and growth are measured

against expectations set by District strategic goals.

Indicator #8: The Board conducts an effective superintendent evaluation

focused on monitoring progress on the District’s strategic goals.

0

5

2

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

3

5

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


44

October 2020


Indicator #9: The Board regularly establishes performance goals for itself.

Indicator #10: The Board ensures the superintendent and staff clearly

understand their roles and responsibilities in creating and supporting a culture of

high expectations throughout the system.

Results: This standard was ranked 7th of the 12 Standards and given an overall rating of




Rating of Developing for Indicators 1, 5, and 4.

Rating of Grow Required for Indicators 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, and 10.

Split response for Indicators 6 and 7.

6

2

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

4

3

1

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


45

October 2020

Standard #5: Using Data for Continuous Improvement and

Accountability The Board uses meaningful quality data and information, from multiple sources and in various

formats, to identify areas for improvement, set priorities, and monitor improvement efforts. At

the same time, they support even better ways to do things the organization is already doing

well.

Indicator #1: The Board uses, and expects superintendent to use, a

variety of types of relevant data in decision-making.

Indicator #2: Programs approved by the Board have effective data

collection requirements and measurable results.

4

1

3

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

2

6

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


46

October 2020


Accountability

Indicator #3: The board uses data to identify discrepancies between

current and desired outcomes.

Indicator #4: The board identifies and addresses priority needs based on

data analysis.

3

3

2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

2

6

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


47

October 2020


Accountability

Indicator #5: The board communicates to the public how policy

decisions are linked to student learning data.

Indicator #6: The board creates a culture that encourages the use of

data to identify learning needs throughout the system.

6

2

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

3

2

3

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


48

October 2020


Accountability

Indicator #7: The Board ensures data used in decision-making is

disaggregated, culturally representative, and provides the ability to

monitor the District’s strategic goals.

Results:


Developing to Growth Required. This area was rated as Developing to Growth

Required in 2016. The following results summarize rating on Standard 5.



Rating of Grow Required for Indicators 2, 4, and 5.


1

6

0

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


49

October 2020

Standard #6: Cultural Responsiveness The Board recognizes cultural diversity in its many facets including social, economic,

political, religious, geographical, generational, linguistic, ethnic, racial, sexual orientation,

gender identification, and students with special needs. The Board develops an understanding

of this diversity and applies perspectives responsive to the cultures in their community in

policy and program approvals. The Board supports effective community engagement and

expectancy strategies to build on the strengths of a community’s cultural diversity.

Indicator #1: Board outreach and community engagement activities

accommodate cultural differences in values and communication.

Indicator #2: The board actively encourages and expects the

superintendent to facilitate the participation of culturally diverse

groups.

1

5

2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

1

3

2

2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


50

October 2020

Standard #6: Cultural Responsiveness

Indicator #3: The board has a process to review policies for cultural

responsiveness and bias.

Indicator #4: Board members approach decision-making considering

the many facets of cultural diversity including those indicated in the

cultural responsiveness standard.

3

4

1

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

3

4

1

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


51

October 2020


Indicator #5: The board ensures district employees are representative of

the values and culture of the community.

Indicator #6: A climate of caring, respect, and the valuing of students’

cultures is established through Board policy and goals.

3

4

1

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

6

0

2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


52

October 2020


Indicator #7: The board ensures the superintendent holds all employees

accountable for high standards and expectations for each and every

student.

Results:

This standard was ranked 3rd of the 12 Standards and given an overall rating of

Developing. This area was rated as Developing in 2016. The following results



Rating of Developing for Indicators 1 and 7.

Rating of Grow Required for Indicators 3, 4, 5, and 6.


2

5

1

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


53

October 2020

Standard #7: Culture and Climate The Board creates a climate of expectation that all students can learn at their highest level.

The Board supports policy and procedures that foster a positive and safe learning

environment. The Board models professional relationships and a culture of mutual respect

with stqff and community. The Board models and establishes an organizational culture of

service.

Indicator #1: The Board models relationships built on trust and respect.

Indicator #2: The Board takes time to reflect and improve internal and

external relationships.

6

2

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

5

3

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


54

October 2020

Standard #7: Culture and Climate

Indicator #3: The Board regularly assesses, holds the district

accountable, and provides support for the improvement of the district

culture and climate.

Indicator #4: The Board creates a system in which high levels of student

learning are expected.

4

4

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

2

5

1

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


55

October 2020

Standard #7: Culture and Climate

Indicator #5: The Board establishes policies and ensures practices to

foster a safe, positive learning climate for students.

Indicator #6: The Board models and holds the District responsible for

improving a culture of service.

1

5

2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

4

1

2

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


56

October 2020

Results:





Rating of Developing for Indicators 4, 5 and 6.

Rating of Grow Required for Indicators 1, 2, and 3.

Split response for Indicator 6.


57

October 2020

Standard #8: Learning Organization The Board ensures the District functions as a self-renewing professional community that

supports reflection, discovery, learning, improvement, and success by staff at all levels. The

Board encourages professional development that empowers staff and nurtures leadership

capabilities across the organization.

Indicator #1: Board policies nurture leadership capabilities across the

organization.

Indicator #2: The Board creates and pursues opportunities to learn

about research-based strategies that ensure continuous improvement for

the next generation of learners.

5

3

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

5

3

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


58

October 2020

Standard #8: Learning Organization

Indicator #3: Board members promote positive change through dialogue

and collaboration.

Indicator #4: The Board encourages professional development that

increases learning and empowerment.

6

2

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

4

2

2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


59

October 2020

Standard #8: Learning Organization

Indicator #5: The Board fosters an environment of mutual cooperation,

emotional support and personal growth throughout the organization.

Results:


Growth Required. This area was rated as Developing to Proficient in 2016. The

following results summarize rating on Standard 8.


Rating of Developing for no Indicators.


5

2

1

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


60

October 2020

Standard #9: Systems Thinking The Board practices and supports systems thinking in its deliberation and approval of policy,

programs, and procedures. The Board practices an integrated view of education within and

across systems and levels (e.g. K-12, ESD, community college, and university). The Board

seeks out collaborative local, state, and national partnerships, coordinated programs, and

shared resource models to improve student learning.

Indicator #1: The board works to avoid policy decisions that shift

problems from one part of the system to another.

Indicator #2: The Board encourages an organizational structure that

enables creative processes.

3

3

2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

4

2

2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


61

October 2020

Standard #9: Systems Thinking

Indicator #3: The Board engages in process thinking, seeing beyond the

immediate situation and easy solutions.

Indicator #4: The board analyzes issues for their impact on other parts

of the system.

5

3

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

5

2

1

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


62

October 2020

Standard #9: Systems Thinking

Indicator #5: The board team is solution oriented.

Indicator #6: The board works collaboratively with other agencies to

encourage dialogue that fosters continual growth.

5

2

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

5

2

1

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


63

October 2020

Results:






Rating of Grow Required for Indicators 3, 4, 5, and 6.


64

October 2020

Standard #10: Innovation and Creativity The Board encourages innovation and creativity as assets to the process of development and

change, leading to new types of thinking and better ways of meeting student needs. The Board

supports innovation and creativity that support district vision, values, and goals throughout

the organization; engages collaborative partnerships; and encourages dialogue, new ideas,

and differing perspectives.

Indicator #1: Board members create time and opportunities for their

own creative thinking.

Indicator #2: Board members partner with community and educational

organizations to remove real and perceived barriers to creativity and

innovation.

5

3

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

3

5

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


65

October 2020

Standard #10: Innovation and Creativity

Indicator #3: The Board sets meeting agendas that allow it to

proactively identify and explore strategic issues.

Indicator #4: The board incorporates flexibility into its future plans to

enable the district to look and move in unforeseen directions in response

to unexpected events.

5

3

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

6

2

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


66

October 2020

Standard #10: Innovation and Creativity

Indicator #5: The Board recognizes the risk inherent in creativity and

innovation; and promotes employee knowledge, awareness, creativity,

self-initiated action and experimentation.

Results:





Rating of Developing for no Indicators.


7

1

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


67

October 2020

Standard #11: Board Member Conduct, Ethics and Relationship with

Superintendent The Board recognizes that it is essential to have a clear, mutual understanding of the

respective roles and responsibilities of the Board and the superintendent. The Board supports

and practices team building as an essential part of this relationship.

Indicator #1: Each member of the Board understands and respects the

distinction between the board’s responsibilities and the Superintendent’s

duties.

Indicator #2: The Board and Superintendent trust and respect one

another.

7

1

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

6

2

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


68

October 2020


Superintendent

Indicator #3: Board members represent the interests of the entire

district.

Indicator #4: Board members preserve the confidentiality of items

discussed in executive session.

7

0

1

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

6

0

2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


69

October 2020


Superintendent

Indicator #5: Board members do not use their office for personal gain or

advancement.

Indicator #6: Board members do not attempt to individually speak on

behalf of the entire Board or commit the Board.

3

1

3

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

3

3

1

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


70

October 2020


Superintendent

Indicator #7: Board members direct complaints and requests to the

Superintendent rather than attempting to solve them directly.

Indicator #8: The Board and Superintendent agree on the information

needed by the Board, and when and how the Board receives that

information.

3

3

2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

6

2

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


71

October 2020


Superintendent

Indicator #9: The Board and Superintendent participate in learning

opportunities as a team.

Indicator #10: Board members come to the meeting familiar with the

agenda and prepared to discuss, ask questions, and takes action on

agenda items.

5

1

2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

3

3

2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


72

October 2020

Results:


Growth Required. This area was rated as Proficient in 2016. The following results




Rating of Grow Required for Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9.

Split response for Indicators 5, 7, 9, and 10.


73

October 2020

Standard #12: Budgeting and Financial Accountability The Board ensures that strategic educational goals of schools of schools are translated into

reality through effective alignment with the budget and make sure the school district is fiscally

sound. The Board utilizes fiscal resources based on student needs and district policy and

strategic goals.

Indicator #1: Board members are knowledgeable of the district

budgeting process.

Indicator #2: Budgeting decisions are based on student needs, adopted

district policy and goals, and the district’s financial ability to meet those

needs

1

2

5

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

0

3

5

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


74

October 2020

Standard #12: Budgeting and Financial Accountability

Indicator #3: Board members have a basic understanding of district

revenues and expenses.

Indicator #4: The Board reviews monthly financial statements provided

by the Superintendent and understand their role in the oversight of the

budget.

2

1

5

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses

2

1

5

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Growth Required

Developing

Proficient

Distinguished

# of Responses


75

October 2020

Results:

This standard was ranked 1st of the 12 Standards and given an overall rating of

Proficient. This area was rated as Proficient in 2016. The following results


Rating of Proficient for all Indicators.

Rating of Developing for no Indicator.

Rating of Grow Required for no Indicator.


76

October 2020

Effective Individual Board Member Practices Whole Board Profile

Characteristic #1: Role Boundaries This characteristic refers to whether a board member practices the role of Disengaged board

member (also called "rubberstamping") or Over-reaching board member (also called

micromanagement).

Practical Description: A board member is Disengaged if they believe their only role is to

hire effective school leaders and then follow whatever these leaders recommend. They do not

believe they need to understand what programs or processes are being used in the schools;

they only need to set outcome goals (i.e. student test results) for the school to reach.

A board member is Over-Reaching if they believe they need to personally check to see if

leaders are doing their job. These board members will go into individual schools to give

direction to building leaders or teachers. These board members insist on giving directions on

how to run the management and operations of the school.

Role Boundaries: Disengaged versus Over-Reaching

Rating: Developing to Growth Required

2016 Rating: Developing to Proficient

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

6

3

5 5

6

9

4

3

1

6


77

October 2020

Characteristic #2: Role Orientation This characteristic refers to whether a board member practices and encourages Trustee or

Delegate Role Orientation.

Practical Description: A board member practicing the Trustee Role engages in open

dialogue focused on general interests and welcomes various viewpoints. They are comfortable

with differences of opinion, and advocates for their constituents’ viewpoints. Once a decision

is made by the whole board, they expect all board members to uphold the decision. They value

board teamwork over actions; and language that minimize antagonism or polarization of other

board members.

A board member practicing the Delegate Role sometimes engages in polarizing debate

focused on single interests and minimizes other viewpoints. They value individual viewpoint

over collective consensus. If a board member disagrees with a decision made by the full board

they do not support the decision and may encourage advocacy to overturn the policy or

program among selected constituents. They value speaking on behalf of vocal special interests

over board teamwork.

Role Orientation: Open Dialogue versus Polarizing Debate

Rating: Growth Required

2016 Rating: Developing

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

3

4 4

6

9

3 3

7

9


78

October 2020

Characteristic #3: Advocacy focus This characteristic refers to whether a board member usually focuses on taking a Position or

holding an Interest.

Practical Description: A board member who takes a Position usually polarizes people by

identifying "friends" versus "enemies". Positions usually take the form of labels (e.g. liberal or

conservative; Republican or Democrat). For example, a board member might describe

themselves as being on the board exclusively to represent and protect students of a certain

race, ethnicity, ability, etc....

A board member who holds an Interest is usually seeking to understand the multiple and

varied positions of district constituents and seeks a solution that addresses the common

interest. For example, a board member might describe themselves as being on the board to

represent the needs of any and all students who are in need of assistance; regardless of race,

ethnicity, ability, etc....

Advocacy Focus: Interest versus Position

Rating: Growth Required to Developing


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

3 3

5 5 5

3

4

11

2

8


79

October 2020

Characteristic #4: Student Concern Focus This characteristic refers to whether a board member usually supports a broad focus or

a targeted focus on student concerns.

Practical Description: A board member who practices a broad focus on student concerns

avoids advocating for only certain groups of students. They also avoid advocating for only

specific needs. A board member with a broad focus advocates on behalf of all students and all

educational issues that might arise.

A board member who practices a targeted focus on student concerns primarily advocates

for certain groups of students, based on their race, ethnicity, gender, or educational need (e.g.

Special Education, ELL).

Student Concern Focus: Broad Focus versus Targeted Focus

Rating: Developing

2016 Rating: Proficient to Distinguished

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

6

10

7

4

1 1

8

7

1

4


80

October 2020

Characteristic #5: Solution Focus This characteristic refers to whether a board member usually supports a standardized or

a local contextual solution to meet the needs of students.

Practical Description: A board member who practices a standardized approach tends to

look for one-size-fits-all programs and curriculum to solve student needs. They believe

that the local needs are not unique and therefore standard solutions that work in other

districts should work in their district.

A board member who practices a local contextual approach tends to look for locally

created programs and curriculum to solve student needs. They believe that the local needs are

unique and changing and therefore standard solutions that work in other districts may not work

in their district.

Solution Focus: Local Contextual Solutions versus Standardized

Solutions

Rating: Proficient to Developing

2016 Rating: Distinguished

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

7

8 8

5 5

6

1

2

4

3


81

October 2020

Characteristic #6: Exercise of Influence

This characteristic refers to whether a board member believes or acts: with individual

authority versus collective authority.

Practical Description: A board member who believes they possess individual

authority may communicate directives to individual school leaders or employees. They may

visit schools for the purpose of monitoring, evaluating, and redirecting operations, processes,

or individual employee performance.

A board member who believes they possess only collective authority understands

they have no official authority outside of the school board as a whole. They avoid

communicating directives to individual school leaders or employees. Their visits to schools are

unobtrusive, informational, and as a part of established school activities (e.g. sports, open

house, concerts).They do not visit schools for the purpose of monitoring, evaluating, and

redirecting operations, processes, or individual employee performance.

Exercise of Influence: Collective Authority versus Individual

Authority

Rating: Developing


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

9

13

7

0 0

7

2 2

4 4


82

October 2020

Characteristic #7: Use of Voice This characteristic refers to whether a board member uses their voice to Tell and Sell their

position or to Hear and Understand broad interests.

Practical Description: A board member who uses their voice to Tell and Sell their position

sees their job on the board as a voice for their constituents and special interests. They tend to

over-talk to promote their own positions and treat communication like a form of competition.

They tend to use combative language and are not a good listener. They seek to be heard rather

than to find reconciliation.

A board member who uses their voice to Hear and Understand sees their job on the

board as a voice to ensure that all interests are heard. They tend to ensure that every board

member is heard and treats communication as an opportunity to hear all viewpoints. They tend

to practice and promote civil discourse and are a good listener. They seek to discover shared

resolutions and reconciliation.

Use of Voice: Hear & Understand versus Tell & Sell



0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

5

9

4 4

3

4

6

7

6


83

October 2020

Characteristic #8: Use of Power This characteristic refers to whether a board member exercises their authority on the board

using Power Over versus Power With approaches.

Practical Description: A board member who uses Power Over acts in a way to push forward

their own position or agenda and is not interested in finding a solution that meets multiple

interests. They tend to use threat or reward to leverage other board members to side with their

position.

A board member who uses Power With acts in a way to ensure that all voices are heard

and that collaborative solutions are found. They use their influence to ensure that all needs are

heard and that solutions meet multiple interests. They do not attempt to push only their own

solutions or highlight only their own needs and positions.

Use of Power: Power With versus Power Over


2016 Rating: Developing to Growth Required

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

PowerWith

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9PowerOver

2

8

9

2

0

3

1

5

10

7


84

October 2020

Characteristic #9: Decision-making Style

This characteristic refers to whether a board member generally prefers to make

decisions Individually or Collaboratively.

Practical Description: A board member who prefers to make

decisions Individually believes that group decisions are too time consuming and inefficient.

The board member may also believe that group decisions may be inferior to individual

decisions because of the need to compromise when seeking consensus.

A board member who prefers to make decisions Collaboratively believes that the extra

time it takes to use shared decision-making is worth the effort. They believe that group

decisions are superior because multiple perspectives are considered and solutions will be more

supported by the whole board. They also believe that multiple perspectives are better at

defining the issues and vetting potential solutions.

Decision-making Style: Collaborative versus Individual Decision-

making


2016 Rating: Proficient

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

3

6

10

4 4

0

6

4

8

4


85

October 2020

Characteristic #10: Motivation for Service This characteristic refers to whether a board member serves on the board for

generally Altruistic or Personal reasons.

Practical Description: A board member who serves on the board for Altruistic reasons may

be motivated by their desire to serve the community, fulfill their democratic responsibility to

society, or to help improve the education for all students in the community.

A board member who serves on the board for Personal reasons may be motivated by their

desire for personal ego or prestige. They may serve because of a personal need for

involvement, to correct a personal concern, to replace a particular school employee, or as a

stepping-stone to a higher political office.

Motivation for Service: Altruistic Reasons versus Personal Reasons

Rating: Developing

2016 Rating: Distinguished

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1414

9

2

3 3 3

2

1

6 6


86

October 2020

Recommended Protocols

The following are recommendations of Governance Policy & Protocols based on the

evaluation results.

1. Formative Strategic Goal Monitoring

Formative Monitoring refers to on-going qualitative and quantitative data that allows the

Board to monitor the progress of the District on achieving District Purpose, Mission & Vision

and Strategic goals. Formative Monitoring is distinct from Summative Assessment which is

typically the reporting of final results of performance at the end of the school year. Formative

Monitoring is an on-going diagnostic to identify areas of performance that can be improved

during the school year.

The following criteria apply:

1. The Board shall acquire formative monitoring data by one or more of the following

methods:

a. By internal reports, including the calendared Formative Monitoring Reports at Board

meetings, in which the Superintendent or staff provide progress information and data.

b. By external report, in which an external disinterested third party selected by the Board

assesses implementation fidelity with Board policies.

c. By recommendation of a District Strategic Team.

2. Formative monitoring data shall be submitted to the Board no more than 5 days prior to

the Board Meeting.

3. In every case, the standard for implementation fidelity shall be any reasonable

interpretation of the Board policy being assessed. The Board is final arbiter of

reasonableness as determined by the majority of Board members.

During a Board meeting the Trustees may take the following action in response to a report or

data presented on a policy or program implementation:

a. When policy implementation is determined to be needing improvement by the

majority of the Board, they shall proceed by making a motion to require the

following appropriate option(s). The motion should include a timeline for the

Superintendent to produce the new or revised policy, the new or revised program,

and/or a formative report indicating proficiency of the policy or program.

i. If progress is unsatisfactory due to outside factors, the Board shall request a

plan or timeline from the Superintendent to achieve proficient implementation.

ii. If progress is unsatisfactory due to unclear policy, the Board shall discuss and

recommend changes to the policy or direct the Superintendent to submit a

revision to the policy at the next Board meeting.

iii. If progress is unsatisfactory due to actions of the Superintendent or staff, the

Board shall ask the Superintendent to provide an action plan and timeline to

achieve proficiency.

iv. If progress is not achieved due to an ineffective program, the Board shall ask the

Superintendent to submit an action plan and timeline on the revision or

replacement of the unsatisfactory program.

v. If progress is not achieved in a timely manner after the above appropriate policy

remedies has been applied, as determined by the majority of the Board, the

Board shall take further action by developing a revised policy through the Board

Policy Review Committee.


87

October 2020

4. All District Policies shall be assessed at a frequency and by a method chosen by the

Board. The Board can assess any policy, both Board policies and District policies and

regulations at any time, by any method but shall ordinarily depend on policy review in

response to the calendared Formative Monitoring Reports.

5. The Strategic goal Monitoring calendar should be constructed by the staff and then

reviewed by the board President for revisions. When an acceptable draft is complete, the

whole Board shall approve the calendar. Changes to the calendar must go to a vote by the

whole Board.

Strategic Goal Monitoring Report Calendar

BOARD REPORT

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Strategic Goal 1:

Measurable Goal 1.1 X

Strategic Goal 1:

Measureable Goal 1.2 X

Strategic Goal 1:


Strategic Area 2:


Strategic Area 2:


Strategic Area 2:


Strategic Area 3:


Strategic Area 3:

Measureable Goal 3.2

X


88

October 2020

2. Board Report Template

Board members shall strive to make policy decisions based on information received from the

Superintendent and staff that reflects the progress or the need for improvement toward the

District Vision, District Strategic Goals and Annual Plan Goals.

All Superintendent or staff reports provided or presented to the Board shall, at a minimum,

follow these Tracking and Reporting Protocols:

a. Ensure that the policy incorporates or supports the District Vision, District Strategic

Goals and Annual Plan Goals.

b. Ensure that the policy incorporates or supports Balanced Governance Board

Standards.

c. Report how cultural responsiveness was addressed in the program development and

in the program products.

d. Ensure that measurable outcome criteria are included.

e. Ensure that specific data are identified that directly indicate Goal progress.

f. Ensure all results reported are compared against state and national averages when

possible.

g. Ensure all results are disaggregated and reported by ethnicity and impoverished

students.

h. Ensure that specific timelines are indicated for Board review of goal progress.

i. Ensure that specific positions are assigned as responsible for action steps on

Measurable Goals.

j. Ensure that problems or challenges are specific, targeted, and clearly communicated

in the Board meeting presentation as part of the Board review and oversight.

k. Ensure that new, revised, or existing program components and procedures, or

elimination of programs or program components address specific identified

problems or challenges.

l. Ensure and specify a calendared time for regular goal progress checking at a regular

Board meeting (See sample calendar below).

m. Ensure research citations and/or studies are included to support recommended

program and process adoption.

n. Include processes and participation of culturally diverse stakeholders and examples

of input provided in the development of all policy and program review and

recommendations.

Possible Report Content

I. State district vision. How did the program support and not support the District

Vision?

II. State relevant district strategic goals. How did the program support and not

support the District Strategic Goals?

III. State relevant district Annual Plan goals. How did the program support and not

support the Annual Plan goals.

IV. Provide a cross-reference to any Board Standards and indicators supported by the

program (e.g. vision and planning, cultural responsiveness, effective leadership,


89

October 2020

systems thinking, learning organization, innovation). Describe how the program

progress did or did not support each of the relevant standards and indicators.

V. Provide a list of bar graphs with each of the measurable outcomes identified by

policy to monitor the program.

a. Include easy to review bar graphs with data.

b. Include specific data being collected to measure program success. This may

require a unique graph for each set of data being collected to monitor the

program.

c. Ensure student cohort-tracked growth data graphs are included to accompany

all non-tracked graphs.

d. Include in each graph a comparison to the state and national averages.

e. Include an additional bar graph disaggregated by ethnicity and impoverished

students.

VI. Under each bar graph, provide a 1 or 2 paragraph description of the following:

a. Using growth data, how was the goal met?

b. Using growth data, how was the program not met?

c. For goals not met, what is the alternative plan to try to meet the goal? Be

specific. How will the current program or process be revised?

VII. Provide timelines showing the following:

a. Program implementation timeline. Indicate our progress on that timeline.

b. Program revision timeline (if applicable).

c. When will updated reports be presented or available to the Board.

VIII. Provide recommendations to the Board for any policy revision or program change

needing Board approval.

IX. Provide an Action Plan for each program presented including:

a. Action steps

b. Timeline

c. Measurable data being collected to check progress

d. Person(s) responsible. Who would the public contact with questions or

concerns regarding the program?

X. Include relevant research citations that support the program in Bibliographic form.


90

October 2020

3. Board Community Engagement

One of the primary responsibilities of the Board of Trustees is for each Trustee to (a) provide

the community information about the decisions and programs of the school district, and (b)

provide the school district with advocacy among community and governmental entities that

may benefit or further the goals of the school district.

As such, Trustees have the option to serve on boards, participate in meetings, or attend events

sponsored by community, institutional, and association entities. This service shall be described

as Board Community Engagement. Board Community Engagement is defined as any

committee position, community/District liaison position, or participation in the activities of

any association, organization, institute, business, non-profit, or special interest entity that

could or does have direct or indirect influence on the District and its District Purpose, Mission

& Vision, and District Strategic Goals.

In order to best accommodate and strategically coordinate Trustee representation at as many

Community meetings, functions, and events as possible the following procedures shall be

employed:

a. The Superintendent and staff shall provide a list of the important stakeholder

associations, organizations, institutes, business, non-profit, and special interest

entities to the Board at least annually.

b. Board members should review and adopt a yearly calendar identifying which

Trustee(s) will participate in which stakeholder groups and events. The

Superintendent and staff shall then create the calendar and provide it to the Trustees

electronically.

c. The Board shall endeavor to provide representation at most or all key stakeholder

events and avoid duplication or exclusion of Trustee participation.

d. The Board shall endeavor to share duties of representation so that the same Trustee

does not act as the exclusive Board representative to a stakeholder group.

e. The Trustee shall be responsible for influencing the stakeholder group to support or

advance the District and its Purpose, Mission & Vision, and Strategic Goals.

f. The Trustee shall be prepared to serve as the formal liaison for this stakeholder

group to the Board and give periodic reports to the activities of the stakeholder

group at a regular Board meeting. These reports shall be delivered under the agenda

item “Trustee Reports”. These reports shall focus on information relevant to

supporting or advancing the District and its Purpose, Mission & Vision, and

Strategic Goals.


91

October 2020

4. Balanced Governance District Strategic Team

Board members shall refrain from individually and privately monitoring the implementation of

policy, programs, or operation processes. To oversee implementation fidelity and District

culture, Board members shall direct the Superintendent to use an Organizational Capacity

Monitoring System, like the Balanced Governance Strategic Teaming Model. The Monitoring

System shall include

a. A permanent District Strategic Team granted the authority to monitor organizational

health and policy implementation fidelity.

b. The membership of the District Strategic Team should be from 7 to 10 members

selected by the Superintendent and shall be comprised of District faculty and staff

from every level of the District organization with a plurality of members at the school

level. The Superintendent will not serve on the Team.

c. The District Strategic Team is responsible for identifying barriers in the organization

that prevent implementation fidelity of policies and programs.

d. The District Strategic Team is responsible to craft an Implementation Support Plan

including specific recommendations on how to remove or lessen barriers and improve

policy implementation fidelity.

e. Data from an Organizational Monitoring survey and progress or lack of progress on

components of the Implementation Support Plan shall be presented to the Board at

least twice per year. The District Strategic Team shall include in their report,

operations and procedural barriers and the solutions recommended and/or enacted.

f. The District Strategic Team shall recommend policy and procedural changes directly

to the Board. All recommendations are subject to Board approval.

g. The Board Liaison shall attend District Strategic Team meetings to provide

information to the Board Chair but shall not serve as a member of the District

Strategic Team.


92

October 2020

Organizational Capacity Monitoring System

District Strategic Teaming Model

Elected Local Board

Educational Oversight

Organizational Capacity Oversight

District Strategic Team

Organizational Systems Capacity & Sustainability

Monitoring Analysis Action

Teacher Leaders

Instructional Improvement

PLCs

Local School Building

Principal

Instructional Leader

Superintendent

Organizational Capacity Agent

Support Staff


93

October 2020

Organizational Capacity Monitoring System: District-wide Strategic Teaming

Sustainability of Innovation

Many school reform initiatives have less than stellar results, lack sustainable gains, and

eventually fail as a result of ignoring the power of complex organizational realities within

schools. The encouraging news is that school leaders, when provided the appropriate

evaluative data on their organizational capacity for sustained change, can powerfully influence

and ameliorate these barriers, simultaneously building capacity for future innovation (Alsbury,

2007; Wallace, 2002). Currently, revolving door reform and what Fullan (2001) calls

“projectitis” are jading the promise of new educational initiatives, draining energy and desire

from teachers to buy into and implement these programs in their classrooms, and destroying

district focus. Coburn (2003) has observed that localized successes in school reform often fail

to sustain due to multiple and shifting organizational priorities.

Reform efforts over the past decade have indicated that strategic planning, increased

accountability, and school restructuring in various forms still often result in an absence of

clear student achievement improvements. Some researchers believe this is primarily due to

inadequate consideration of system analysis and planning (Mintzberg, 1993), while others

point to (a) a need to add district and state-level leadership to frequently unsustainable

building-level reform attempts (Fullan, 2005; Fullan, Hill, & Crevola, 2006), (b) more

consideration of unique contextual variations in districts (Fullan, 2001), (c) the inclusion of

sustainability variables in reform plans (Coburn, 2003), and (d) the use of distributed

leadership (Elmore, 2000) and collaborative decision-making processes (Firestone, 1996).

Leithwood, Aitken, and Jantzi (2001) indicated that, "the consequences of tightening the

accountability "screws" often are a narrowing and trivializing of the school curriculum and the

creation of work cultures that reduce rather than increase professional commitments" (p. 2).

These researchers indicated that the local learning required for successful restructuring efforts

is aided by feedback about the consequences of innovative practices and information about

remaining obstacles to change. A systems analysis during, and subsequent to, innovation or

reform seems necessary if sustained change to the school’s culture, and a continuance of the

resulting student achievement gains is to remain a viable goal (Fullan, 2001; Deal & Peterson,

1999).

Historical Development of the District Strategic Teaming Model

Development of Assessment Tools

Alsbury (2008) responded to the need for a model to measure and track changes in

organizational barriers and supports through the development of organizational systems

assessment tools. These interview, observational, and survey tools were developed based upon

a merging and modification of organizational learning theory and survey tools developed by

Leithwood, Aitken, and Jantzi (2001) and sustainability theory and components described by

Coburn (2003). These tools were then tested as an add-on organizational systems component

of an already established National Science Foundation (NSF) four-year longitudinal study

implementing the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) initiative (Hand, 2008).


94

October 2020

The outcomes of the Hand study included (a) the validation of the Organizational Assessment

Survey (OAS), (b) the increase in organizational capacity to implement and sustain

innovation, (c) improvement of student achievement, and (d) findings confirming the need to

couple organizational systems support to any innovative program implementation. As noted,

this 2002-2006 pilot study provided validation of the organizational systems tools (OAS),

revealed significant student achievement improvements, especially among traditionally low-

achieving students with special needs; and measured increased sustainability of the SWH

innovation.

The findings indicated the OAS analysis and ensuing recommendations for system changes,

led to increased organizational capacity for implementing and sustaining science, technology,

and mathematics (STEM) initiatives in the district in the future. The study also gave hints as to

missing elements in the process; namely the need for a collaborative, cross-district leadership

team to be trained in the sustainability variables discovered in the pilot study, in order to

manage the implementation of the organizational systems survey, analyze and interpret data

within the context of the district culture; and provide recommendations for the elimination of

organizational barriers at the central office, building, and classroom levels. To be effective the

District Strategic Team should be a permanent working collaborative. In 2007, the need for a

strategic leadership team to be selected and trained to administer the Alsbury OAS and

organizational systems process was fulfilled with the development of the Innovation Leaders

Academy (ILA).

The Innovation Leaders Academy

The Innovation Leaders Academy (ILA) process involves the selection of a District Strategic

Team (DST). The DS Team is selected in conjunction with the school district superintendent,

but must include the district superintendent, assistant superintendents or central office

Trustees, school principals, teacher leaders, and logical support staff. The DS Team is

recommended to maintain approximately 10 in number to remain a workable size to ensure

full collaborative decision-making, and the composition should include district personnel.

There are two iterations possible in the use of District Strategic Teams; an District Strategic

Team and Innovation Strategic Team.

District Strategic Teams

While both types of district strategic teams function with a similar purpose, they differ in their

scope. The District Strategic Team is a permanent collaborative formed to monitor, identify,

analyze, and develop an action plan intended to eliminate organizational barriers, and develop

and support positive organizational characteristics and processes that promote improved

implementation and sustainability of innovative programs in the school district. In other

words,

the DS Team’s purpose is to ensure system-wide organizational support and sustainability for

the innovation. In order to accomplish this purpose, the DS Team activities include:

1. Describing and contextualizing the issue or problem that needs

remediation in their district.


95

October 2020

2. Delineating potential organizational barriers and supports at classroom,

school, and district levels that likely influence success in implementation

and sustainability.

3. Administering the Organizational Assessment Survey (OAS) to measure

existing variables that support or present barriers to the implementation

and sustainability of the innovation.

4. Develop and draft an Organizational Support Plan that provides action

items to address and ameliorate barriers to program implementation and

sustainability.

5. Engage in on-going measurement and analysis of annual OAS and locally-

developed data collection tools to evaluate and revise the Organizational

Support Plan, and to craft recommendations for changes to the

organizational system in the district.

To prepare the District Strategic Team (DST) to be able to achieve these activities, they are

provided training and coaching meeting three times per year (Fall, Spring, Summer) in the

Innovation Leaders Academy (ILA). The ILA trainers/coaches (a) provide normative

leadership training in six areas (building capacity for innovation, collaborative decision-

making, change processes, distributed leadership, adaptive leadership, and sustainability); (b)

observe and coach the DST in team processes and assist in developing team coherence and

efficacy; (c) facilitate the collection of relevant contextual data within the district; (d) facilitate

the collection of organizational data on leadership, structural, cultural and other identified

data; (e) facilitate the collection of baseline data and subsequent annual data; (f) collect all

data and provide usable charts for analysis by the DST, (g) train the DST how to analyze data

and develop an Organizational Support Plan and (f) provide coaching to assist the DST in

making recommendations on organizational changes needed to realize sustainable

organizational capacity for implementation fidelity.


96

October 2020

5. Advocacy Engagement Practices

School boards are given the primary obligation by statute to make decisions that

impact students and families. As such, board members play an advocacy role to

endorse, support, and advance the districts’ and communities issues and interests. To

accomplish this task, board members must actively and unapologetically advocate for

issues through board meeting deliberation. In addition, Boards should approve policies

and programs that advance student and community interests.

The challenge to advocacy comes when one attempts to identify what topics should

board members advocate. Should a board member advocate for their own interests?

Should a board member advocate individual student or parent interests? School boards

serve a broad community with diverse and pluralistic values and needs. As such, the

most effective Boards practice advocacy for the following:

Broadly accepted community issues/needs

Issues defined in their strategic goals

Issues described in their shared mission and values

Issues that may abridge student civil or legal rights

Issues that may lead to community dissatisfaction or lack of support for the

district

Issues that address systemic concerns including quality control, customer

service, implementation fidelity, or resource allocation fidelity

Issues that address concerns about personnel practices

In order to provide Board members direction on how to act upon issues of advocacy in

the Balanced Governance model, it is helpful to

establish advocacy categories

identify the Board members role for each advocacy category

delineate a general approach for addressing each advocacy category

Advocacy Categories

The following are examples of advocacy categories:

Implementation Fidelity. Policies not implemented with fidelity or practices

running counter to intent of policy (e.g. athletic/activity parent & student

surveys; dress code; limiting excused absences to 5 rather than the maximum

allowed by law)

Individual Interest. These are issues for a specific student/parent or a small

group of students/parents (e.g., starting an archery club, specific complaints at

board meetings or to board email about individual students, teachers, etc.).

Potential Systemic Indicator. These can be identified even by individual

issues that may expose potential system patterns (e.g., Interlake robotics

program volunteer certification; classroom volunteer sign-up at International

school for a math class; lack of timely information about kindergarten

registration including for choice schools; IT system configuration for student

data and sharing with external orgs like PTSA; student fees for field trips or

other activities, especially at certain schools; specific curriculum issues;

Halloween costume dress-up).


97

October 2020

Systemic Pattern. These are issues that appear to arise frequently either in

individual schools or with particular groups of students/families or appear

systemically across the district (e.g., lack of service orientation of

transportation department in developing and addressing issues with routes and

stops; school administration shortcomings at particular schools; lack of follow-

up regarding reported disciplinary/HIB issues, particularly with the reporting

party).

Systemic Quality. These are issues of a lack of broader quality of/approach to

district programs or implementations (e.g., inconsistent sports programs, non-

transparent and non-specific safety and security plan; college and career

counseling/readiness; support/respect for undocumented immigrant students

and families; high school math grades and student learning opportunities).

Responsiveness. These are issues where students/parents sought informal

appeals of decisions or perceive a lack of school/district responsiveness (e.g.,

request for change in school placement with cause; accusation of

discriminatory treatment/grading by teacher; waiver for math or PE or other

course requirements).

Community Inputs. These are issues generated during various

communications to or with board members (e.g. office hours, board community

forums, emails to board, public comments to board, etc.). These items can fall

into the categories above.

Approaches to Addressing the Category

The following are approaches used by highly effective boards to address issues of

advocacy. These approaches provide a balance between the board members role of

Delegate (advocacy role) and Trustee (stability role). The balance of these roles is

necessary and cannot be mutually exclusive.

A Delegate role in isolation creates an unsustainable debate environment on the board

that often leads to board members advancing self-interest over what is best for all

students in the district. Typically, this leads to chaotic board meetings, fractured board

relationships, decision-making stalemate, community dissatisfaction, and eventually

board and superintendent turnover. This approach neither advanced the board

members’ interests or help the students.

A Trustee role in isolation focuses on maintaining agreement and consensus among

board members at all costs. Trustee boards typically vote unanimously on every issue,

do not deliberate over issues, rubberstamp district staff initiatives, and remain mostly

disconnected from program oversight. Typically, this leads to a lack of sustainable

student success, a lack of innovation and creativity, poor program quality, a lack

implementation fidelity, community dissatisfaction, and eventually board and

superintendent turnover. This approach neither advanced the board members’ interests

or help the students.


98

October 2020

Research supports a balanced governance approach applying both Delegate (advocacy)

and Trustee (stability) roles. Practices include the use of deliberation in board

meetings focused on clarifying and probing questions and avoiding destabilizing forms

of advocacy.

Approaches to Address Advocacy Categories

First, it should be understood that all input from the public, in whatever form it takes

is valuable for the improvement of the school district. In other words, advocacy is

always appropriate as long as the subject of the advocacy is supported by the shared

mission, values, and strategic goals of the district. Advocacy for supported values is

important to address whether it comes from a large group of people or from a single

person.

Second, Board members may or may not share a concern for the issue but should play

their role as a board member and follow up on the concern. Conversely, personal

interest is not appropriate for board members to address in the context of their board

role unless it is an issue that is congruent to shared vision, mission, and strategic goals.

Third, board members should resist participating in what is called covert advocacy.

Covert advocacy has been used in court trials to “induce jurors to rule on issues on an

extralegal basis”. One example of covert advocacy is to exaggerate the breadth of an

issue (e.g. “Most parents believe that the district should have a chess club at all high

schools”). Another example is to wrap an advocacy issue into what appears to be a

clarifying or probing question during deliberations (e.g. “I would like to see data on

the correlation of student grades to participation in a chess club.”).

While shared advocacy is always appropriate, variations on how to approach advocacy

are dependent on the breadth, timeliness, and primacy to district vision, values, and

goals. Approaches should also follow the standards of balanced governance, especially

regarding (a) appropriate board roles and the (b) time and method of the approach. The

chart below provides research supported approaches to various categories of advocacy.

In general, advocacy for management and operations issues should be passed on to the

superintendent for follow-up. Advocacy issues connected to the strategic goals, policy,

and mission/values should be addressed through board discussion/action, policy

revision, strategic goal revision, or goal monitoring revisions.

Advocacy Approach Protocol

1. Assess whether the substance of the issue fall in the management and operations arena.

If it does, the issue should be handled by the superintendent. If the problem is also

systemic in nature, the issue can be addressed through a policy or strategic goal

change.


99

October 2020

2. Assess whether the issue is individual or systemic. If the issue is individual, it should

be handled by the superintendent. If the problem is systemic, it may be discussed at a

Board meeting and handled through a policy or strategic goal change.

3. All issues, regardless of where they emanated or their scope and scale, should be

reported to the superintendent. If the issue requires a response, ask the superintendent

to give you a timeline estimate and the process of the response. Board members should

get back to the concerned party and ask if the follow-up occurred.

4. If the issue is systemic or may indicate a systemic issue, the issue should be shared

with the Board President. During this time, the Board member can request the item be

placed on the Board agenda for discussion. The Board President should confer with

the superintendent regarding the issue. The Board President (and other Board agenda

developers) can then:

a. Add the issue as a potential discussion item on an upcoming Board

agenda.

b. Hold the item to see if other board members report similar issues.

5. If the issue is deemed by Board agenda developers as a potential discussion at a Board

meeting, the issue should be raised during the “Agenda Planning” segment of the

board meeting. The full Board should vote on whether to include the item in an

upcoming board meeting as a topic of discussion and select which Board meeting to

add the item.

6. During the Board discussion, the following actions could be taken by the Board or

requested of the Superintendent regarding the issue:

a. Sign a crafted statement or declaration from the Board

b. Revise the Mission, Vision, Strategic Goals

c. Revise Policy

d. Revise data monitoring and reporting to track the issue

e. Request a closed session to discuss the issue (if identified personnel are

involved)

f. Add the issue as an evaluation item in the superintendent evaluation

Advocacy Protocols Guide Advocacy

Approaches

(Use in the

following

order)

Advocacy Category

Implementation

Fidelity

Individual

Interest

Potential

Systemic

Indicator

Systemic

Pattern

Systemic

Quality

Responsiveness

1. Assess link

to vision,

values,

strategic goals

X

X

X

X

X

X

2. Assess link

to management

& operations

X

X

X

X

X

X

3. Report to the

Superintendent

X

X

X

X

X

X


100

October 2020

4. Request

follow-up

details

(timeline,

process)

X

X

X

X

X

X

5. Board

agenda item

X

X

6. Strategic

goal revision

X

X

X

7. Data

monitoring

request of

Board

X

X

X

X

X

8.

Superintendent

evaluation

X

X

X

X

Board Meeting Practices

Advocacy

During a deliberation, board members and staff both are best to focus on shared, broad

advocacy and broad student interest.

Board members and staff should avoid representing individual interests or

asking questions that appear to be personal asks for themselves, a friend, or a

single parent/family/student.

Board members can and should be advocates for the district mission, values,

and strategic goals. They should be advocates for all students. They should

avoid asking questions that appear to be for the purpose of “hidden” or covert

advocacy. Covert advocacy is usually also narrowly focused in self-interest or

the individual interest of another parent or student.

Ensure that probing questions are not actually a cover for a leading question or

covert advocacy.

Purpose of Probing and Clarifying Questions

During deliberation, probing and clarification is intended to better understand the

issues and advocate for the board’s shared values, not engage in leading school

programs to address an individual interest that is covert and not clearly discussed or

included in the Board’s shared values, mission, and strategic goals.

Probing questions can also fall into the category of covert advocation for individual

parents or students who have not taken their issue through the proper resolution

channels or who represent an individual interest that may or may not be shared by the

broader community.

While it is appropriate for Board members to find a venue to address issues raised by

individual parents or interest groups, discussion of educational programs is not the


101

October 2020

time for this discussion. It is the appropriate time to relay general concerns from a

broader constituency.

Example: Consider these questions from a deliberation, during which a Board member

presented a dilemma about increasing students’ commitment to cultural awareness:

— My son found that using this rubric helped him better assess his cultural

awareness? (recommendation based on self-interest stated as a question)

— A friend of mine told me that cultural awareness program as her school was

ineffective. What would happen if students at all our schools assessed the

quality of their cultural awareness themselves? (recommendation based on an

individual interest stated as a question; could be covert advocacy)

— A growing question from our community is whether students should be

invested in changing their cultural awareness? (probing question including

shared interest and broad advocacy)

— A question I am hearing more often is what would have to change for students

to work toward cultural awareness on their own? (more effective probing

question including broad interest)

— Our mission compels us to ask what would have to change for students to

work toward cultural awareness on their own? (more effective probing

question including overt and shared advocacy)


102

October 2020

6. Reporting and Monitoring Protocols

Overview of Progress Monitoring

The Board directs the Superintendent to provide regular reports to the Board to

facilitate transparency, accountability, and understanding of the work of the

District in fulfilling its mission, vision, values, and commitments to equity and

accountability. These reports shall focus on the:

A. Strategic plan goals;

B. Equity and accountability commitments;

C. Annual plan goals

D. Goals, particularly those in support of strategic and annual goals,

presented in School Improvement Plans (SIPs)

This process is part of the broader work of the Superintendent to ensure that the

District monitors the effectiveness, outcomes, and impacts for all students from its

curricula, programs, departments, initiatives, and overall work. Both the impacts of

individual initiatives and programs on students, and the overall experience of

students should remain in focus when monitoring and considering data about

particular programs. Board Trustees shall strive to make policy decisions based on

information received in these reports that reflects the progress or the need for

improvement toward these various goals and with consideration of the overall best

interests (with respect to advancing our mission, vision, values, and commitments to

equity and accountability) of each and every student in the District.

The Superintendent will develop a common report template or set of templates

and/or report guidelines to be used consistently for all reports created by the

Superintendent and district staff for the Board. The Board will approve this

procedure and any updates to it.

Additional Reports

It is not uncommon for the District to present to the Board a variety of reports

that are required by state statute and/or that support transparency and accountability

for District operations, but that do not directly monitor progress in the district

toward Strategic goals or Annual Plan goals. Reports of this type (e.g. field trips,

construction progress or change orders, budget updates, etc.) should generally be

included as a Consent Agenda item. Occasionally, if these reports contain areas that

require a formal presentation or further discussion, Board Trustees or the

Superintendent can request that those reports or sections of the report be moved to

the Action or Discussion Items portion of the Board meeting. At least once in the

first two months of the school year, the Superintendent will provide the Board with

a demographics and enrollment report.


103

October 2020

Note that state, federal, and other legally and contractually (e.g., for grants)

required reports not listed under items A-D in the above list of reports should first

comply with any relevant mandated reporting requirements, and should then

address relevant aspects of reporting from this policy, as determined appropriate

by the Superintendent, in consultation with the Board. The Superintendent will

enumerate and maintain a list of all legally required reports, and any timeline

requirements.

Occasionally, the Board may request an additional report of the

Superintendent, which they should do in consultation with the Superintendent

in the context of other reports and District priorities. The Superintendent may

also choose to issue additional reports to help provide important information to

the Board.

Additionally, formal Board committee progress reports (mid-year, and end-of-

year, as described in the Report Calendar) should generally conform to the

reporting approach outlined in this document. Such Board committee reports,

however, do not need to be approved by the Superintendent or follow the District

procedure, but rather should be approved by both Board Trustees serving on a given

board committee.

Report Content

To support the Board’s oversight role, all Superintendent or staff reports to

the Board, written and/or oral, shall:

Be approved by the Superintendent or designee prior to submission to the

Board. (The superintendent’s approval should be noted by date on the

cover page of the report or in another conspicuous location.)

Be submitted according to the timeline requirements specified in this policy.

The reports should contain, at a minimum, the following:

Goals

The report should be organized around District strategic and annual goals and

the corresponding pre-identified measurable outcomes. Specifically, the report

should clearly identify:

the goal(s) being addressed in the report,

the measures being used to assess the goals (final measures, and if different,

interim monitoring measures), and the timeline for monitoring and

assessment of these particular goals,

whether the goal was considered a “stretch goal” (i.e., a goal that is


104

October 2020

deliberately challenging or ambitious), and

how these goals support the District’s strategic or annual goals, the

District’s commitment to equity and accountability, and/or the District’s

advancement of its values.

Rating of Goal Progress

Specify current status using a red/yellow/green color to unambiguously

indicate progress on the goals based on the following color assignment:

GREEN

o Goals are being met or exceeded or are on track to be met or exceeded.

o No significant changes or resources are needed.

YELLOW

o Goals are not yet met, AND goals are not on track to be met or are about

to encounter a road block will slow down progress; some course

correction is needed.

o Progress is being made, but unintended consequences or complications

have arisen.

o Plan is in place or being developed with confidence of a path back to

green.

o Any needed resources and/or changes in strategies are accessible.

RED

o Progress on goals is below expectations or a significant known road block

is preventing, or about to prevent, progress.

o The path back to green is not yet clear.

o Action is needed with respect to changes to the plan, resources, and/or

implementation strategies.

Data Sources & Collection Methods

Highlight the data that provides, what staff experts agree, is the most

accurate and complete understanding of the progress and outcomes

(intended and unintended) related to the goals being monitored. Ensure that

data illustrates, and does not obscure, outcomes and impacts on students

and staff.

Cite sources of evidence used to evaluate progress/outcomes, including a

clear and complete list of data on which findings are based.

Include key sources of data in the report. (Detailed data may be provided in

an appendix or separate supporting document as appropriate.) Data


105

October 2020

included in the report must be disaggregated based on the requirements of

the Equity and Accountability policy and in relation to any particular

aspects of the given goal.

For data provided, explain how this data contributes to an understanding

of the experiences of and outcomes for students. In addition, consider the

following questions and provide any significant/salient highlights related

to the key data presented:

o Why are the data being used/highlighted?

o Describe the data collection methods used.

o Why was the data collected in this way?

o What steps were taken in collecting the data?

o How was the data analyzed or interpreted?

o What assumptions were made?

o How were changes determined to be significant or not discernible? (If

using quantitative data, consider discussing levels of significance,

margins of error, and validity, if applicable.)

o How was the possibility of unintended consequences (positive or

negative) looked for and considered?

o Who was involved in data collection and data analysis?

Findings and Reflections

Identify the key take-aways.

Highlight what the data tells us about goal progress and outcomes. Reflect

on the following questions about the data and include significant/salient

highlights in the report.

o What does the data imply regarding progress towards the relevant goal(s)?

o What trends does the data reveal?

o What specifics or nuances does the data reveal?

o What did we see that we didn’t expect to see? Include any

unintended consequences.

Highlight other key implications of the data, particularly related to student

experiences, learning, and other impacts (intended and unintended). Reflect

on the following questions and include significant/salient highlights in the

report.

o How do the data expose strengths or challenges highlighted by the

critical criteria (see Policy 0130 and Procedure 0130P) with respect

to the goal(s) being reported and their implementation in the District?

o What are your reflections when comparing actual data

results with expectations?

o What data were most useful in monitoring and understanding the

progress of the work? Why/how were these data particularly useful?


106

October 2020

o Was there any data that was not particularly helpful in monitoring and

understanding the progress of the work, or any data that actually

provided a misleading understanding of progress? Explain.

o Is there any different or additional data that we should consider

monitoring? Explain.

o What factors (e.g., resources, training, strategies, implementation

choices/constraints, etc.) are impacting progress (negatively or

positively)?

o Were there any best practices or positive lessons learned that we should

codify for this context and that we should consider sharing with others in

the District to consider.

o Were there any particular problems of practice identified?

If the report is a summative report, provide some information about value and

costs of the strategies applied to the advancement of this goal. Reflect on the

following questions and include significant/salient highlights, if any, in the

report.

o Did the program/initiative have positive impacts on students?

o Will the program/initiative be continued? Why or why not?

o Were costs as expected, below expectations, or in excess of expectations?

o Will any changes be made to address costs?

Organization and Formatting

Format reports to ensure the following:

o Make the language plain and understandable to non-educators. If

acronyms or education-specific terms are used, they should be defined

in the report (at first use where possible and in a list of key terms and

acronyms where appropriate).

o Label all axes, tables, graphs, figures, and data clearly.

o Make graphical data clear and understandable such that it cannot be

misunderstood. When possible, include data in tables and reports.

Clarify when comparative data are based on past years/classes verses

based on cohort growth.

o Include the date on which the report was finalized.

o If the report is a subsequent version of a previously provided

report, it should indicate so, and include both the date of the

previous version and its own date. If the report is a follow up to a

previous report, it should indicate so, specifying both the report it is in

follow up of, and its own finalized date.


107

October 2020

Next Steps

Identify for the Board any significant next steps that the District

will be taking to address goal progress and attainment, including:

o Additional resources

o Changes in strategies

o Additional data collection

o Other key changes that will help the Board to understand the

work, the needs, impacts on students and staff, implications for

policy development, and progress towards goals

If any goal presented in the report is rated as “red”, and the report is not

a summative report covering the overall strategic or annual plans, the

report must present a timeline for reporting back to the Board about

progress on these goals. This report must be presented in writing and

may or may not be discussed during a Board meeting (see below

regarding Board follow up action).

Identify any of the following that you would like to recommend to

and/or request of the Board in support of goal progress and attainment.

Note that anything presented in this section will require Board approval

to proceed.

o Potential policy revisions (and timeline).

o Needed additional resources that are not within the

District’s current budget/plan and that would require Board

approval (including timeline).

o Measurement adjustments to what was approved in strategic or

annual plans

o Timeline adjustments to what was approved in strategic or

annual plans, or Board reporting calendar

o Goal adjustments to what was reported in strategic or annual plans

o Other requests or recommendations, as appropriate

Reporting Frequency and Timeline

Reports to the Board should adhere to the following timelines and according to the dates

specified in the relevant planning documents:

Strategic Plan goals

One summative report should be provided each year by December

following the school year for which the data were collected. The report

should assess progress on each Strategic Plan goal.

Annual Plan goals (Tier 1 & Tier 2)

At least two formative updates on progress toward each Tier 1 annual


108

October 2020

plan goal should be provided from September- May.

One formative update on progress toward each Tier 2 annual plan

program goals should be provided August – May.

One summative report should be provided in May/June of each school

year. This report should address the final outcome and status for each

annual plan goal (both Tier 1 and Tier 2 goals).

Equity and accountability commitments

One annual report on progress against District’s commitments to equity and

accountability must be presented by the end of June and must be in

compliance with both the requirements of this policy and of the Equity and

Accountability policy.

As part of the establishment of the Annual Board Calendar and in creation of relevant

planning documents, the Superintendent will work with the Board to provide a

timeline for reporting on specific annual (Tier 1 & Tier 2) and strategic plan goals, as

well as school reports, and an equity and accountability report. Timelines for

establishing and updating strategic and annual plans and goals, should be followed as

delays in that process may impact reporting.

From time to time, the Board and/or Superintendent may initiate an additional report

to the Board, as needed, to address an emerging issue, a change in plan, or a deeper

tracking of something already being reported to the Board.

Each individual report should be prepared and submitted with sufficient time for

the following report review and approval process:

Step 1. District staff complete the report using the prescribed report template

and submits to the Superintendent or designee.

Step 2. Superintendent reviews and approves the report.

Step 3. Board Trustees receive the report at least 8 business days prior to the board

meeting.

Step 4. Board Trustees review the report and submit related questions and

requests for additional information to the Superintendent at least 3

business days prior to the Board meeting. Board Trustees may provide

additional questions/feedback and request additional information at the

meeting as appropriate but should endeavor to present the majority of

their initial concerns prior to the Board meeting.

Step 5. If revisions are made to the report, the Superintendent or designee must

approve the revised report prior to distribution to the Board.


109

October 2020

Board Actions Regarding Reports to the Board

For all reports submitted to the Board, whether in the consent agenda in writing

only, or presented in writing and discussed during a Board meeting, the Board must

vote on whether to accept the report as fulfilling the given monitoring and reporting

requirement established for that goal. Note that acceptance of the report does not

indicate approval of any requests or recommendations to the Board presented

within the report, nor does it indicate the Board’s approval of the progress on the

work itself. Specifically, the Board should consider the following options:

A. The Board accepts the report as presented.

B. The Board accepts the report as presented and requests some additional

information be provided at a future time or in a later planned report.

C. The Board requires additional information be presented and delays

accepting the report until additional information is provided and accepted

by the Board.

If a report is presented only in the consent agenda, and is not presented separately for

further discussion, Board passing of the consent agenda will imply that the Board

accepts any reports contained within it. Any reports explicitly removed from the

consent agenda or also included on the Board agenda for additional

presentation/discussion will not be considered accepted by the Board as part of the

consent agenda approval.

In addition, once a report is submitted to the Board, the following actions may ensue:

Request Compliance with Reporting and Monitoring Requirements. Prior to the

Board meeting, if a Board Trustee finds that any of the reporting requirements are

not met in a given report, that Board Trustee should inform the Board President of

their concerns. The Board President should communicate any such concerns to the

Superintendent. The Board President and Superintendent should attempt to come to

consensus on any revisions needed for the item to be included at the upcoming Board

meeting. If the Board President or Superintendent believe that adequate revisions

have not been completed in a timely fashion, the Report should be removed from the

meeting agenda. If, at the start of a Board meeting, a Board Trustee is concerned that

a report does not meet the reporting requirements, during the approval of the agenda

at the relevant Board meeting, a Board Trustee may propose that a report be removed

from the agenda for that meeting and only brought back when all reporting

requirements are meant. The Board may then choose to remove that report from the

agenda or to proceed with the report on the agenda as planned (which may or may

not result in Board acceptance of the report).

Remove from Consent Agenda. If a Board Trustee would like further discussion

and/or a separate vote to consider acceptance of a report in the consent agenda, the

Board Trustee should request to have that item removed from the consent agenda for

separate consideration. Such a request may be made prior to a Board meeting, or at

the agenda approval or consent agenda portions of the Board meeting. When


110

October 2020

possible, as described in section a above, Board Trustees should raise their concerns

about reports to the Board President prior to the relevant Board meeting.

o Ask Clarifying Questions. The Board may ask questions of clarification of

the Superintendent and/or his designated staff members to better

understand the content of the report, and most importantly, the impact of

the work on students, staff, families, District culture, and desired

outcomes. When possible, Board Trustees should submit clarifying

questions to the Superintendent prior to the Board meeting. Additional

time during the Board meeting may or may not be available for clarifying

questions during that item’s time on the agenda.

o Provide Feedback to the Superintendent. The Board may express, to the

Superintendent, their individual satisfactions, concerns, and/or feedback

about the work in the report. All feedback provided by individual Board

Trustees may be considered by the Superintendent and the staff based on

its merits. However, such feedback is not considered direction from the

Board unless otherwise explicitly indicated, formally or informally, during

the discussion. Such feedback may be provided to the Superintendent prior

to or following the Board meeting, and sometimes, time allowing, during

the discussion of that agenda item during the Board meeting.

o Request Additional Information. The Board may request additional data

or information from the Superintendent to be in compliance with reporting

requirements, to provide greater clarity and/or transparency, to help inform

related Board decisions, and/or to support the role of the Board. Such

requests should be made in consultation with the Superintendent and

should not unreasonably detract from the execution of the work to support

students. The Superintendent should make clear to the Board the

implications of their request if such requests will require significant time,

effort, or expense to the District so that the Board can prioritize its

requests accordingly. When possible, such requests should be made of the

Superintendent by Board Trustees prior to Board meeting. Additional time

during the Board meeting may or may not be available for clarifying questions

during that item’s time on the agenda.

o Discuss Open Issues with Board Trustees and Superintendent. Time

allowing, if Board Trustees have concerns related to accepting a report or

related to next steps from a report, Board members may discuss further

with each other and with the Superintendent, in compliance with the Open

Public Meetings Act. Primarily, such discussions will take place during

Board meetings in open public session as appropriate.

o Establish a Follow-up Timeline. If the Board does not accept a particular

report, or if the progress rating for any goal in a report (except the final

summary reports for the annual or strategic goals) was RED, the Board, or


111

October 2020

the Board President on behalf of the Board, should consult with

Superintendent to determine a timeline for an updated report. They should

also agree on whether the follow up report will be written only (and

included in consent agenda) or will be written and will be discussed during

a future Board meeting. The Board should also establish a follow up

timeline with the superintendent for receiving any additional follow up

data or information. Generally, such timelines will be discussed and

determined during Board meetings. However, when the Board President

and Superintendent are aware of follow up needs prior to the Board

meeting, they should consult with each other to agree on a timeline to

propose at the Board meeting.

Additional Reporting Requirements

In addition to the reporting above, the District will:

Ensure that reports to the Board that monitor progress on strategic plan

goals, annual plan goals (tier 1 and tier 2), equity and accountability

commitments, and the school improvement plan, in addition to being

posted with Board meeting materials, will be made available on the

District website in a way that community members may reasonably

locate and access them.

Report annually in a news release to the local media the district's

progress toward meeting strategic and annual goals.

7. Balanced Oversight

What are the responsibilities of a Board President in facilitation?

Guide – You must know the steps of the process the groups will execute from the

beginning to the end. You can also help by holding up a mirror to them and their work

and letting them know how they are doing and how far they have gotten and that

particular parts are difficult sledding

Motivator – From the rousing opening statement to the closing words of cheer, you

must ignite a fire within the group, establish momentum, and keep the pace. To remain

impartial, however, be sure to praise good behavior (good questions, engagement, etc.)

not specific ideas or opinions.


112

October 2020

Questioner – You must listen carefully to the discussion and be able to quickly

analyze and compare comments and to formulate questions that help manage the group

discussion.

Bridge Builder – You must create and maintain a safe and open environment for

sharing ideas. Where other people see differences, you must find and use similarities

to establish a foundation for building bridges to consensus, while also helping groups

better understand their differences.

Clairvoyant – Throughout the session, you must watch carefully for signs of potential

strain, weariness, aggravation, and disempowerment, and respond in advance to avoid

dysfunctional behavior. Facilitators use social and emotional intelligence to sense the

feelings in the room.

Peacemaker – Although it is almost always better to avoid a direct confrontation

between participants, should such an event occur, you must quickly step in, reestablish

order, and direct the group toward a constructive resolution.

Taskmaster - You are ultimately responsible for keeping the session on track; this

entails tactfully cutting short irrelevant discussions, preventing detours, and

maintaining a consistent level of detail throughout the session.

Guidelines for Oversight Deliberation for Board Members

Speak your mind freely, but don’t monopolize conversation.

Listen carefully to others. Try to really understand what they’re saying and respond to

it, especially when their ideas are different from your own.

Avoid building your own argument in your head while others are talking. If you are

afraid you will forget a point, write it down.

Remember that deliberation is about sharing ideas and building new ones. It is not a

contest to see whose ideas are best.

Try to put yourself in someone else’s shoes. See if you can make a strong case for an

argument with which you disagree. Are there things you appreciate about that

perspective?

Help to develop one another’s ideas. Listen carefully and ask clarifying questions. For

example, “Can you explain further what you meant by …”

Paraphrase each other to confirm understanding of others’ points. For example you

may say, “So are you saying…”

Be open to changing your mind. This will help you really listen to others’ views.

When disagreement occurs, don’t personalize it. Keep talking and explore the

disagreement. Look for the common concerns beneath the surface.

Be careful not to discredit another person’s point of view. For example you may raise

a new concern by asking, “I share your concern that…, but have you considered…?”

Remember that, although you are trying to listen to and build on each other’s ideas,

that doesn’t mean that everyone has to end up in the same place.

Do not be afraid to say you don’t know or to say you’ve changed your opinion.

Clarifying and Probing Questions


113

October 2020

CLARIFYING QUESTIONS are simple questions of fact. They clarify the dilemma

and provide the nuts and bolts so that participants can ask good probing questions and

provide useful feedback later in the protocol. Clarifying questions are for the

participants and should not go beyond the boundaries of the presenter’s dilemma. They

have brief, factual answers, and don’t provide any new “food for thought” for the

presenter. The litmus test for a clarifying question is: Does the presenter have to think

before she/he answers? If so, it’s almost certainly a probing question.

Some examples of clarifying questions: • How much time does the project take? • How were the students grouped? • What resources did the students have available for this project?

PROBING QUESTIONS are intended to help the presenter think more deeply about the

issue at hand. If a probing question doesn’t have that effect, it is either a clarifying

question or a recommendation with an upward inflection at the end. If you find

yourself asking “Don’t you think you should …?” or “What would happen if …?”

you’ve gone beyond a probing question to giving advice. The presenter often doesn’t

have a ready answer to a genuine probing question.

A good probing question:

• Allows for multiple responses

• Avoids yes/no responses

• Empowers the person being asked the question to solve the problem or manage the

dilemma (rather than deferring to someone with greater or different expertise)

• Stimulates reflective thinking by moving thinking from reaction to reflection

• Encourages perspective taking

• Challenges assumptions

• Channels inquiry

• Promises insight

• Touches a deeper meaning

• Creates a paradigm shift

• Evokes more questions

• Is concise

• Prompts slow response

Since effective probing questions can be difficult to frame, we offer the following

suggestions: • Check to see if you have a “right” answer in mind. If so, delete the judgment from the

question, or don’t ask it.

• Refer to the presenter’s original focus point. Check your probing questions for

relevance.

• Check to see if you are asserting your own agenda. If so, return to the Board’s shared

agenda.

• Sometimes a simple “why…?” asked as an advocate for the presenter’s success can be

very effective, as can several why questions asked in a row.

• Try using verbs: What do you fear? Want? Get? Assume? Expect?


114

October 2020

• Think about the concentric circles of comfort, risk, and danger. Use these as a

barometer. Don’t avoid risk, but don’t push the presenter into the “danger zone.”

Avoiding Recommendations Design probing questions so they are not actually a recommendation clothed in a

question. Learn to distinguish between effective probing questions and suggestions,

advice giving, and recommendations.

Example: Consider these questions from an Oversight Consultancy, during which a

Board member presented a dilemma about increasing students’ commitment to cultural

awareness:

— Could you have the students use this rubric to assess their cultural awareness?

(recommendation re-stated as a question)

— What would happen if students assessed the quality of their cultural awareness

themselves? (recommendation re-stated as a question)

— Why should students be invested in changing their cultural awareness? (probing

question)

— What would have to change for students to work toward cultural awareness on their

own? (more effective probing question)

Avoiding covert and self-advocacy

Ensure that probing questions are not actually a cover for a leading question or covert

advocacy. Balanced Oversight probing and clarification is intended to better

understand the issues and advocate for the board’s shared values, not engage in

leading school programs to address an individual interest that is covert and not clearly

discussed or included in the Board’s shared values, mission, and strategic goals.

Probing questions can also fall into the category of covert advocation for individual

parents or students who have not taken their issue through the proper resolution

channels or who represent an individual interest that may or may not be shared by the

broader community. While it is appropriate for Board members to find a venue to

address issues raised by individual parents or interest groups, discussion of educational

programs is not the time for this discussion. It is the appropriate time to relay general

concerns from a broader constituency.

Example: Consider these questions from Balanced Oversight, during which a Board

member presented a dilemma about increasing students’ commitment to cultural

awareness:

— My son found that using this rubric helped him better assess his cultural awareness?

(recommendation based on self-advocacy stated as a question)

— A friend of mine told me that cultural awareness program as her school was

ineffective. What would happen if students at all our schools assessed the quality of

their cultural awareness themselves? (recommendation based on an individual interest

stated as a question; could be covert advocacy)

— A growing questions from our community is whether students should be invested in

changing their cultural awareness? (probing question including broad interest)


115

October 2020

— A question I am hearing more often is what would have to change for students to work

toward cultural awareness on their own? (more effective probing question including

broad interest)

— Our mission compels us to ask what would have to change for students to work

toward cultural awareness on their own? (more effective probing question including

overt and shared advocacy)

Possible probing question stems

• Why do you think this is the case?

• What would have to change in order for…?

• What do you feel is right?

• What’s another way you might…?

• How is…different from…?

• What sort of an impact do you think…?

• When have you done/experienced something like this before? What does this remind

you of?

• How did you decide/determine/conclude…?

• What is your hunch about…?

• What was your intention when…?

• What do you assume to be true about…?

• What is the connection between…and…?

• What if the opposite were true? Then what?

• How might your assumptions about…have influenced how you are thinking about…?

• What surprises you about…? Why are you surprised?

• What is the best thing that could happen?

• What are you most afraid will happen?

• What do you need to ask to better understand?

• How do you feel when…? What might this tell you about…?

• What is the one thing you won’t compromise?

• What criteria do you use…?

• Do you think the problem is X, Y, or something else?

• What evidence exists….?

• If you were X, how would you see this situation?


Clark County School District 2020 Comprehensive Evaluation ...

Documents

Transcript of Clark County School District 2020 Comprehensive Evaluation ...