Next Level Driven · 2019-05-29 · NEXT LEVEL DRIVEN 5 Administration had developed metrics and...

Presented to the Board of Trustees May 8, 2013

Report Written By Greg Pietersma Workgroup Members: Art Buckland, Caroll Carkner, John McAllister, Jeff McMillan, David McDonald, Greg Pietersma in consultation with David K. Thomas A report to create a reporting framework and a presentation layer to provide the Trustees with an additional tool to fulfill the accountability mandate of a trustee.

U p p e r C a n a d a D i s t r i c t S c h o o l B o a r d

Next Level Driven

2 NEXT LEVEL DRIVEN

Table of Contents

GOING TO THE NEXT LEVEL 4

INTRODUCTION 4

THE BEGINNING 7

PERFORMANCE MONITORING WITH KPI's AND KRI's 8

KPI'S & KRI'S 8 SEVEN CHARACTERISTICS OF KPI'S 8 4 CHARACTERISTICS OF KRI'S 8 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS. 9

CREW AND CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS 10

UCDSB CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS AND KPI's/KRI's 11

GRADUATION RATE 11 NET PROMOTER SCORE 11 GRADUATE STUDY 12 STUDENT CULTURE 12 STAFF CULTURE SURVEY 12 SCHOOL SUCCESS PLAN PROGRESS 12 PERFORMANCE FOCUSED BUDGETING 12

RESULT INDICATORS 12

IMPLEMENTATION AND ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS 13

APPENDIX A: REPORT TO ESTABLISH ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK WORKGROUP 14

APPENDIX B: REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE UPDATING ON THE STATUS OF THE ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK 16

APPENDIX C: CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS 18

COMMUNICATION 18 RESOURCES 18 EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS 18 WELLNESS 18

APPENDIX D: KEY RESULT INDICATORS 19

GRADUATION RATE 19 NET PROMOTER SCORE 19

NEXT LEVEL DRIVEN 3

HIGH SCHOOL EXIT SURVEYS AND GRADUATE STUDY 19 STUDENT CULTURE SURVEY 19 STAFF CULTURE SURVEY 19 PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING 19

APPENDIX E: RESULT INDICATORS 20

EQAO 20 CAPTURE AND RETENTION RATE 20 HEALTH AND SAFETY 20 BULLYING 20 SUSPENSIONS AND EXPULSIONS 20 GRADE 10 CREDIT ACCUMULATION 20 GRADE 11 CREDIT ACCUMULATION 20

APPENDIX F: BOARD REQUIREMENTS AS OUTLINED BY ARTICLE 169.1 OF THE EDUCATION ACT. 21

ACTION/REPORT 21

STATUS 21

APPENDIX G: EIGHT CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE SCHOOL BOARDS: AT A GLANCE 22

WORKS CITED 24

4 NEXT LEVEL DRIVEN

Going to the Next Level In spring of 2012 the Trustees voted to create an Accountability Framework Workgroup to create a reporting framework and a presentation layer to provide the Trustees with an additional tool to fulfill the accountability mandate of a trustee.

Introduction In 2003 the Upper Canada District School Board began a new chapter in its growth. In the five years following the forced amalgamation of four School Boards the new Board had managed to combine its policies, back office processes and employee contracts. Board culture and vision remained disparate- with an east versus west divide. Board morale was low. The Board of Trustees recognized that to move to the next level, they need to attack the low morale, develop a unifying vision and create a culture built on shared values.

To lead this journey the Board hired David K. Thomas. The direction was simple: build morale, and develop a vision and values. Do this while keeping the “main thing, the main thing” – student achievement.

Change came quickly. Following 100 conversations with staff and stakeholders, Director Thomas mapped out a strategy to develop a strategic plan that would respond to the direction as laid out by the Trustees.

The result was CREW; a strategic plan that was built on the four pillars of Communication, Resources, Educational Programs, and Wellness. From this came the creation of a mission statement and a vision and a set of goals. In subsequent years values were established through the Character Always! initiative and the goals were focused on a 90% graduation rate.

During this period, Trustees supported the strategic plan and the initiatives that grew out of the charters Administration had developed to support the goals. In the strategic plan reviews that occurred in 2006 and 2009, Trustees participated as individuals.

In 2009,the Provincial Government passed Bill 1771. This Bill amended the “Education Act with respect to student achievement, school board governance and certain other matters.” In the section relating to school board governance the legislation defined the roles and responsibilities. Section 169.12 formally identified the work of school boards. This work included promoting student achievement, ensuring effective stewardship of their resources and developing a multi-year plan.

Implementation of these expectations presented some challenges for the Trustees. Unlike many Boards, UCDSB had a multi-year plan that met many of the legislated objectives. The Trustees did not want to alter the current structure of the strategic plan but wanted to fulfill its duties not currently met by the existing structure, mainly in monitoring and reporting.

1 (Wynne 2009) 2 (Government of Ontario 2012)

NEXT LEVEL DRIVEN 5

Administration had developed metrics and systems to monitor the effectiveness and progress of the plan. The Trustees attempted to use those measures to gain a sense of the plans’ success. And while the Trustees could see the impact of the plan on the Board’s goals, it was difficult to correlate the measures by administration and the needs of Trustees.

Starting in 2009, Trustees started to work on methods that would allow them to communicate effectively to their communities and live up to the requirements added by Bill 177 as outlined in Appendix F.

The first efforts to meet these requirements included trying to develop a process to evaluate the Director of Education and creating a process to evaluate the Strategic Plan. Neither effort lead to meaningful results.

In other efforts to meet the requirement around reporting to our communities the Board requested that the 2010 Director’s Annual Report be taken on a road show. The objective was to provide communities around the Board the opportunity to view the report and then be able to ask questions of the Director and Chair. In the three years this was attempted the turnout was low and this was abandoned in 2013.

An understanding of the realms in which Administration and Trustees operate will help us develop measures that better serve Trustees.

Let’s start with a metaphor: the kitchen and the dining room. This metaphor is used to denote the areas of activities for the two parties: Trustees in the dining room setting the menu (goals) for the Administration who operated the kitchen in order to deliver the requested menu. One would not interfere with the other. The dining room may request eggs over easy – but it is up to the kitchen to determine whether they would be cooked on a non-stick pan or cast iron griddle. The metaphor could be developed further to have the dining room set a policy that only duck eggs could be used and so on.

This model created by the metaphor with clear delineation between the two parties is not effective. Both parties can help each other if there was the free flow of ideas. For that we added the idea of the hallway. In the hallway conversations could occur with the understanding that no one gives up their authority. So in our metaphor the dining room could inquire on the efficiency of using non-stick vs. cast iron or the kitchen could ask why eggs were being requested instead of pancakes.

The model is not realistic either. The model makes it out that parents, students, administration, and staff bound the trustee’s sphere. The impact of this vision causes Trustees to overemphasize it’s relation to those parties. Accountability follows this emphasis as well. Leading Trustees to rely on the measures used by Administration to themselves or to staff and parents/students. To be realistic we must recognize that there is an additional party that needs to be added to the model: the community.

6 NEXT LEVEL DRIVEN

In 2010 the Trustees started to look at the budget approval process by the Board. Analysis revealed that there were two main objectives in the budget process. The first was to ensure that the Budget was compliant to the rules outlined by the Public Sector Accountability Board (PSAB) and the Education Act. The second was to ensure that the resources were being used effectively and met the standard of good stewardship.

The first objective was straightforward. The UCDSB has a history of compliant budgets and excellent Audits. (two external and one internal)

The second objective was considerably more difficult. Defining what was required to fulfill the Trustees’ role as stewards of the Board’s resources was a challenge. Nonetheless, in subsequent budgets the process was refined and the process continues for the 2013-14 budget.

In May of 2012 (See Appendix A) the Trustees decided that they required more information, more data to fulfill their role and voted to establish a workgroup. The workgroup was mandated to create a reporting framework and a presentation layer to provide the Trustees with an additional tool to fulfill the accountability mandate of a Trustee.

Shortly after the Trustees voted to create the workgroup, Chair Pietersma invited First Vice Jeff McMillan, Second Vice David McDonald, Trustee Art Buckland, Trustee Caroll Carkner, and Trustee John McAllister to join the Accountability Framework Workgroup (AFW).

The following is their final report. The workgroup wishes to thank David Thomas for his insight and support.

NEXT LEVEL DRIVEN 7

The Beginning The workgroup started its journey with a review of the two main performance monitoring systems – the balanced scorecard as outlined by Paul R. Niven in Balanced Scorecard: Step-by-Step for Government and Nonprofit Agencies and key performance indicators as outlined by David Parmenter in Key Performance Indicators: Developing, Implementing, and Using Winning KPIs.

The workgroup subscribed to Paramenter’s critique of the balanced scorecard system. He argues that the scorecard approach used performance measures to monitor a strategic plan leads to mayhem. Hundreds of measures and a complex matrix do little to drive an organization forward. He writes, ”The main purpose of performance measures is to ensure that staff members spend their working hours focused primarily of the organizations critical success factors.”3 In addition, Parmenter’s structure provided a clear delineation of measure for the governance body and administration.

With the KPI methodology as the foundation, the AFW moved on to review the precise responsibilities of the Board of Trustees.

The result is summed up in Figure 1. The Framework outlined below goes some way to providing the Board with measures. But there still is much work to be done. Unless we could establish a KRI that made sense we left some aspects of our sphere of responsibility out of the framework. These include OPSBA, STEO, UCLC and Policy. A recent decision by the Board to refer Policy Monitoring to the Board Audit Committee leaves just the process of review to build into the framework.

With an understanding of what we are directly responsible for and the KPI system for performance monitoring we set about our task with the following guide provided by Parmenter:

3 (Parmenter 2012), 16.

FIGURE 1

8 NEXT LEVEL DRIVEN

Performance Monitoring with KPIs and KRIs I am often asked, “Are KPI’s relevant for government and non-profit agencies as they are obviously for the private sector?” My answer is always an unequivocal yes. I would even go on to say that KPIs could have a more profound impact in government and non-profit agencies as resources are scarcer and staff can easily be diverted away from what is important by the politics inherent in such agencies. – David Parmenter4

KPIs & KRIs Performance monitoring with key performance indicators (KPIs) and key result indicators (KRIs) is a useful structure when developing a structure to monitor a school board’s performance. It is easily adapted to an organization that has multiple defined levels – Board of Trustees, Senior Team and school administration. The following is an overview of KPI’s starting with definitions and the structure. For a complete review of KPI’s read Key Performance Indicators, by D Parmenter listed in the Works Cited.

It is important to understand the relationship between KPIs and KRIs. Understanding this will allow the appropriate indictor to be sought by the appropriate level of the organization. Let’s look at an example. The “Key” part of the indicator is driven by your critical success factors, which will be explained later. For now we will look at the difference between Performance Indicators and Result Indicators. The kindergarten capture rate shows what percentages of the children age 4 or 5 choose a particular board. This measure is calculated on an annual basis after the first of September. It is in effect telling us the result

of the campaign to register kindergarten students; therefore it is a Result Indicator. Result indictors are always hindsight. They allow you to access strategies and make changes before you begin again. Performance indicators on the other hand must be in the moment.

The data from a Performance Indicator can be used to alter the outcome. In our example a possible performance indicator might be a report run 2 weeks into the kindergarten registration process. The report would show the current number of registries and compare them to what has happened in the past. If the report showed that we were not on track to

4 (Parmenter 2012), 3.

5 (Parmenter 2012), 76.

Seven Characteristics of KPIs5 • Non financial (not expressed in Pds, $s, Euros etc.) • Measured frequently e.g. daily or 24 by 7 • Acted upon by CEO and senior management team • All staff understand the measure and what corrective

action is required • Responsibility can be tied down a team • Significant impact e.g. it impacts most of the core CSFs

and more than one BSC perspective • Has a positive impact e.g. affects all other performance

measures in a positive way

4 Characteristics of KRIs • Measured monthly/ quarterly/ yearly. • Can be financial/ non financial. • Indicates results rather than actions. • Reported as a way of a trend/graph.

NEXT LEVEL DRIVEN 9

get to the anticipated capture rate changes could be made such as adding additional advertising.

As mentioned, some PIs and RIs are elevated to the level of “Key”. What makes the difference is how crucial they are to the organization. Crucial indicators are key indicators.

To summarize: A Performance Indicator is calculated real time and can be used to alter the course of a process or project. A Result Indicator is provided at the completion of a process or project. It can used to access performance, summarize activity and drive new directions.

It is worth referencing that measures can be created and implemented in a way that does not lead to the desired outcomes. Parmenter describes some examples in his book.6

Critical Success Factors. The success of a KPI or KRI is based on measuring or reporting on the right aspect of the operation. Measuring the wrong thing can be dangerous. To mitigate this outcome KPIs/KRIs must be rooted in the organizations Critical Success Factors (CSFs)7. The strategic plan is how the work is organized to achieve the Critical Success Factors (see Figure 1) and the indicators are driven by the CSFs.

FIGURE 2 LINKAGES BETWEEN STRATEGY AND KPIS8

6 (Parmenter 2012), 4-5. 7 (Parmenter 2012),16. 8 (Parmenter 2012), 62.

10 NEXT LEVEL DRIVEN

Parmenter is clear in saying that PIs do not measure the strategic initiatives (charters in our lexicon).9 The source of all PIs is the critical success factors.

The characteristics of CSFs include:

• Are worded simply so that anyone would realize what is important to the organization

• Will be no surprise to management and the board. • Focused on the organization and not divided up by department. • Are few in number. • Are focused in a precise manner rather than being bland statements.10

Parmenter also states that the selection of CSFs is a very subjective exercise.

CREW and Critical Success Factors This structure outlined in Figure 1 is very similar to the structure of our strategic plan. CREW is setup up with mission / vision / values, strategies and a variation of Critical Success Factors (CSFs). Many of the features Parmenter outlines already exist in our strategic plan. This makes implementing his structure very different from what he outlines. There is no need to redo the work done or significantly change the structure around CREW.

Going forward the process described by Parmenter to find an organization’s11 CSFs would need to be adapted, in part because CREW already had CSFs of a sort. Each of the pillars of CREW had introductory statements that act as the section CSFs. To convert them into CSFs they needed to be reconceived with the characteristics of CSFs in mind.

This became the Accountability Framework Workgroup’s first task. Keeping with the existing structure, 4 new draft statements were crafted:

1. To facilitate parent involvement, student achievement, and public confidence, communication must be clear, purposeful, effective, targeted and branded.

2. To create an engaging learning environment, support student achievement, and sustain public confidence, resources must be allocated equitably, responsibly, and timely.

3. To provide relevant and challenging experiences, educational programs must be delivered by qualified, innovative, caring staff, supported by pertinent and engaging professional development.

4. For staff and students to be able to function at an effective level we must recognize, model, and encourage spiritual, mental and physical wellness.

9 (Parmenter 2012), 85. 10 (Parmenter 2012), 90. 11 (Parmenter 2012), 85-103.

NEXT LEVEL DRIVEN 11

These were conceived based on what we are doing now as a Board, and not to set a new direction. The AFW will be recommending these CSFs are work shopped to further refine or enhance.

With these draft CSFs in place the Workgroup went on to look at the PIs

UCDSB Critical Success Factors and KPIs/KRIs

Looking at the definition of the two types of measure it is easy to see how as a Board we could relate to them. Administration uses KPIs and Trustees use KRIs. In fact Parmenter states “…KRIs provide information that is ideal for the board or government official (i.e., those people who are not involved in the day-to-day management).”12 Bearing that in mind the AFW focused on what KRIs the Board might adopt in order to monitor our CSFs. KPIs were not considered at all.

The following are being presented as Key Result Indicators to be adopted by the Board:

• Graduation Rate

• Net Promoter Score

• Graduate Study

• School Culture Survey

• Staff Culture Survey

• Progress of School Success Plan

• Performance Based Budgeting

Graduation Rate Goal: to achieve a graduation rate of 90%. AFW recommends that we adopt the Ministry of Education methodology to allow for comparisons against other Boards and the Provincial Rate. This KRI is to be presented annually to the Board.

Net Promoter Score Goal: to analyse our communities’ ability to recommend our Board. This KRI will help the Board assess public confidence as driven by communication and the allocation of resources. Follow up questions of detractors will lead to improved performance indicators for Administration. The Net Promoter Score will be conducted every October and the data will be reported annually.

12 (Parmenter 2012), 72.


Graduate Study Goal: to track a sample of our graduates over several years. This KRI will test our mission statement and check the effectiveness of our educational programs. The results will be reported annually.

Student Culture Goal: to use data gathered from a student survey such as Tell Them From Me to assess the spiritual, mental and physical wellness of our students. The results will be reported annually.

Staff Culture Survey Goal: to conduct an annual survey of our staff. The survey will assess the effectiveness of our professional development, allocation of resources, communication, and the wellness of our staff. The results will be reported annually.

School Success Plan Progress Goal to permit schools on a cyclical basis to report on their School Success Plans and a range of Result Indicators such as the schools capture rate, professional development (PD) taken by staff, co and extra curricular activities, community partners, EQAO, and parent engagement. Each school will report once in a 4-year cycle. This KRI will provide feedback on all of our school focused Critical Success Factors.

Performance Focused Budgeting Goal: to provide a process whereby the Director, Superintendents and Department Managers will report to the Board of Trustees. The expenditures of the past year will be aligned and measured with a focus on key successes, risks to the departmental goals and corrective measures for the new budget. Reference to data and Result Indicators will be part of each report. Reports will be presented throughout the year as needed.

Result Indicators The AFW has also identified a list of Result Indicators (see Appendix E) that will be reported throughout the school year. (EQAO, Capture and Retention Rates, Health and Safety, Bullying, Suspensions and Expulsions, Grades 10 and 11 Credit Accumulation)


Implementation and Additional Recommendations This is obviously a large undertaking. There are short-term and long-term objectives in the implementation of this Accountability Framework.

The Critical Success Factors will require immediate approval. Therefore, there will be a joint Senior Team/Trustee workshop in the next 30 days to review and fine-tune the draft Critical Success Factors. Once this process is complete they will be forwarded to the Board for approval. This timeline will allow them to be incorporated in the next CREW document.

Once the Board has adopted this report the implementation of the KRIs can begin. The work remaining is the further refinement of the objectives of each of the KRIs and the creation of the new surveys/reports. AFW is recommending that the Staff Culture Survey and the Graduate Survey, be outsourced. Both these KRIs will benefit from the advice of experts in these fields.

The Result Indicators will also require further refinement.

To oversee the implementation and operation of the KRIs and RIs, the AFW is recommending that the UCDSB create an Accountability Framework Committee. The terms of reference for the committee would be as follows:

• Membership will consist of the Chair and 5 Trustees as well as the Director of Education or designate.

• Accountability Framework Committee would be responsible for overseeing the implementation then the operation of the KRIs and RIs. This includes establishing the format data, which will be presented.

• The Committee will not receive the reports; rather all reports must be presented to the Board through COTW via Management Council.

• Meetings will be open to staff and Trustees • Meeting to be called by Board Chair or Committee Chair. • Committee Chair will be elected at first meeting and then after each of the Board’s

organizational meetings.

The AFW recommends that this committee be also established in the Boards By-Laws

Working with KRIs and RIs will require Trustees to process large quantities of data. While the goal is to express the data in ways that will make it easy for Trustees to understand, the AFW recommends that the Chair provide training for Trustees in the fall of 2013. The objectives of the training will include:

• How to read data to inform effective decisions and engage public support. • Data-based questions Boards should ask.

Finally, the workgroup recommends that the Board in its second year of each term review the Critical Success Factors and the associated KRIs.


Appendix A: Report to establish Accountability Framework workgroup

PURPOSE: To create a reporting framework and a presentation layer to provide the Trustees with an additional tool to fulfill the accountability mandate of a trustee.

BACKGROUND: Since 2004 the board has had a detailed Strategic Plan. The Director has developed numerous metrics to evaluate the Strategic Plan. Trustees have been using these reports in lieu of a framework specifically developed for Trustees. In addition to the Director’s reports, trustees have multiple ways to evaluate the effectiveness of the Plan. Some of these ways include:

• Auditors Reports to ensure compliance with financial rules • An array of reports to the Board such as enrollment & health and safety • Data walls in the Administration Building • The Director's Annual Report

Over several working sessions, the Trustees have discussed the concept for a Framework that reflects their audience and requirements. The Trustees have also discussed for the framework to be presented in a unified format that facilitates their unique usage requirements. One key aspect of the presentation layer is sufficient background to explain the results. Some areas to consider when developing the Framework:

• Data must be presented to allow for rapid comprehension and to direct focus on areas of concern or success

• Data must collected to allow for long term comparison • Framework should be accessible by the public (online) • The audience is ultimately our constituents • Data must be accompanied with “The story behind the numbers”

CONTENT: A formal Framework, designed for use by Trustees would be based on our Strategic Plan. The following is breakdown by the four pillars of our Strategic Plan. CREW: Communication, Resources, Educational Programs, Wellness

• Communication: o Satisfaction Survey that is conducted on a regular basis

• Resources: Equitable Distribution of Resources

o Report that overlays the needs index with resource allocation on schools o An instrument that evaluates the perception of Equitable Distribution


• Educational Programs, Retention Rate

o Attraction Rate - Broken down by Board, and then by region o EQAO - Board, School, Cohort o 16 X 16

• Wellness o Absentee Report o Health and Safety o Extra Curricular & Co-Curricular

• CREW Goal Graduation Rate

While this is not an exhaustive list it is important to get started. To review the Framework, the Board should consider establishing a workgroup of Trustees. The workgroup would also assist in the creation of a presentation format that meets the needs of trustee.


Appendix B: Report to Committee of the Whole (COTW) updating on the status of the Accountability Framework

PURPOSE: To report to Committee of the Whole the status of the Accountability Framework initiative. BACKGROUND: The Upper Canada District School Board of Trustees passed the following recommendation at the Special Meeting of May 30, 2012:

• That Committee of the Whole recommend the Upper Canada District School Board instruct the Director of Education to work with the Chair to establish an Accountability Framework. A plan for implementation to be presented to Committee of the Whole in October 2012.

Motion by David McDonald, second by Peter Garrow. Final Resolution: Motion Carries In Favour: Arthur Buckland, Caroll Carkner, Peter Garrow, William MacPherson, John McAllister, David McDonald, Jeff McMillan, Greg Pietersma, Susan Richards

CONTENT: The accountability framework workgroup was established by Chair Pietersma in June 2012. The committee is comprised of 1st Vice McMillan, 2nd Vice McDonald, Trustee Buckland, Trustee Carkner, and Trustee McAllister. The workgroup has had 2 formal work sessions. Upon reviewing the original motion the members have arrived at the conclusion that to exercise our full array of responsibilities we need to ask Committee of the Whole to expand the scope to include compliance, policy and other areas such as the Upper Canada Leger Centre (UCLC). To arrive at the final report detailing the Accountability Framework we are proceeding with the following process.

• Creation of methodology • Review of Trustees sphere of responsibility • Creation of Critical Success Factors (CSF). The statements detailing the four pillars

of CREW are being rewritten to be CSF's. • Use of Balance Scorecard principals to help frame the measure (Key Result

Indicators) • Creation of Key Result Indicator's (KRI's) • Application of Data Visualization techniques to make data useable.

The original directive requested that a final report be presented to Committee of the Whole this month. More time is required to complete this initiative. Some of the measures outlined in the original report are being put into place concurrently.


These will include:

• Credit accumulation • Capture rate and retention rate • Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) • Health and Safety • Community satisfaction • Graduation

The following 3 books are being used by the workgroup:

• Key Performance Indicators: Developing, Implementing, and Using Winning KPIs By David Parmenter

• Balanced Scorecard: Step-by-Step for Government and Nonprofit Agencies Paul R. Niven


Appendix C: Critical Success Factors

Critical success factors will replace the statements that introduce the four pillars of CREW.

Original Statement Updated Statement

Communication In a safe and caring environment, we will ensure purposeful, ongoing, open exchanges of ideas, sharing of information and an awareness of decisions.

To facilitate parent involvement, student achievement, and public confidence, communication must be clear, purposeful, effective, targeted and branded.

Resources In a safe and caring environment, we will allocate people and resources in a transparent, effective and fair manner that meets the needs of our diverse community.

To create an engaging learning environment, support student achievement, and sustain public confidence resources must be allocated equitably, responsibly, and timely.

Educational Programs In a safe and caring environment, we will lead in the initiation, development and promotion of world-class educational programs and services.

To provide relevant and challenging experiences, educational programs must be delivered by qualified, innovative, caring staff, supported by pertinent and engaging professional development.

Wellness In a safe and caring environment, we will nurture a respectful, inclusive and safe community where all people listen and respond.

For staff and students to be able to function at an effective level we must recognize, model, and encourage spiritual, mental and physical wellness.


Appendix D: Key Result Indicators

Result Indicator

Description Relation to CREW

Other relations

Goal or Target

Graduation Rate

Use the Ministry methodology to allow for tracking against other Boards and the Province

Over arching Goal

90% by 2020

Net Promoter Score

Analyse our communities’ ability to recommend our Board. Follow-up questions for detractors will help understand on what needs to be addressed.

Communication

Resource Allocation

Educational Programs

Ed Act Requirement

Established baseline in 2012

High School Exit Surveys and Graduate Study

A two-part study. The first part will be an exit survey completed by a sample of students graduating students. These students will then be tracked for a number of years.

Tests our Mission statement.

Education Programs

Student Culture Survey

Tell Them From Me Wellness Ed Act requirement

Staff Culture Survey

Survey like the EKOS survey commission by the Board in 2000.

Wellness Ed Act Requirement

Performance-Based Budgeting

The beginning of this process will look at developing department reports that detail risks and success in the pursuit of Board and Department goals

Resources


Appendix E: Result Indicators

Data to be shown Display Type

EQAO Reading, Math results for each level by grade for each school, 10 years data

Stacked Bar Graph

Reading and Math results as an average of level 3-4 by grade for each school versus Needs Index

Scatter plot graph

Reading, Math results for each level by grade for school Board, 10 years data

Stacked Bar Graph

Capture and Retention Rate

Percentage of students entering our schools at kindergarten for Board Multi-year Data

Percentage of students entering our schools at Grade 9 for Board Multi-year Data

Percentage of students entering our schools at kindergarten by school Multi-year Data

Percentage of students entering our schools at Grade 9 by school Multi-year Data

Health and Safety

Bullying

Suspensions and Expulsions

Grade 10 credit accumulation

Grade 11 Credit Accumulation


Appendix F: Board Requirements as outlined by article 169.1 of the Education Act.

Action/Report Status

Ensure effective stewardship of the board’s resources

Budget review process that allows Trustees to be confident that the resources are being allocated effectively. Provides Trustees with the knowledge of the risks to the Board’s strategic plan as well as achievements

Completion 2013

Deliver effective and appropriate education programs to its pupils

Monitor through Accountability Framework

Completion 2014

Develop and maintain policies and organizational structures that promote the Board’s goals and encourage pupils to pursue their educational goals

On going work of the Board On going

Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of policies developed by the board

Assigning policy monitoring to Board Audit committee.

Waiting on implementation report from Audit Committee

Develop a multi-year plan aimed at achieving the Board’s goals

CREW Completed

Annually review the strategic plan No plans of yet

Monitor and evaluate the performance of the board’s director of education

Creation of policy and process to evaluate the Director.

Completion by June of 2013


Appendix G: Eight characteristics of effective school boards: At a glance

What makes an effective school board – one that positively impacts student achievement? From a research perspective, it’s a complex question. It involves evaluating virtually all functions of a board, from internal governance and policy formulation to communication with teachers, building administrators, and the public. But the research that exists is clear: boards in high-achieving districts exhibit habits and characteristics that are markedly different from boards in low-achieving districts. So what do these boards do? Here are eight characteristics: 1. Effective school boards commit to a vision of high expectations for student achievement and quality instruction and define clear goals toward that vision. Effective boards make sure these goals remain the district’s top priorities and that nothing else detracts from them. In contrast, low-achieving boards “were only vaguely aware of school improvement initiatives” (Lighthouse I). “There was little evidence of a pervasive focus on school renewal at any level when it was not present at the board level,” researchers said. (Lighthouse I) 2. Effective school boards have strong shared beliefs and values about what is possible for students and their ability to learn, and of the system and its ability to teach all children at high levels. In high-achieving districts, poverty, lack of parental involvement and other factors were described as challenges to be overcome, not as excuses. Board members expected to see improvements in student achievement quickly as a result of initiatives. In low-achieving districts, board members frequently referred to external pressures as the main reasons for lack of student success. (Lighthouse I) 3. Effective school boards are accountability driven, spending less time on operational issues and more time focused on policies to improve student achievement. In interviews with hundreds of board members and staff across districts, researchers Goodman, Fulbright, and Zimmerman found that high-performing boards focused on establishing a vision supported by policies that targeted student achievement. Poor governance was characterized by factors such as micro-management by the board. 4. Effective school boards have a collaborative relationship with staff and the community and establish a strong communications structure to inform and engage both internal and external stakeholders in setting and achieving district goals. In high-achieving districts, school board members could provide specific examples of how they connected and listened to the community, and school board members received information from many different sources, including the superintendent, curriculum director, principals and teachers. Findings and research were shared among all board members. (Lighthouse I; Waters and Marzano) By comparison, school boards in low-achieving districts were likely to cite communication and outreach barriers. Staff members from low-achieving districts often said they didn’t know the board members at all. 5. Effective school boards are data savvy: they embrace and monitor data, even when the information is negative, and use it to drive continuous improvement. The Lighthouse I study showed that board members in high-achieving districts identified specific student needs through data, and justified decisions based on that data. Board members regularly sought such data and


were not shy about discussing it, even if it was negative. By comparison, board members in low-achieving districts tended to greet data with a “blaming” perspective, describing teachers, students and families as major causes for low performance. In these districts, board members frequently discussed their decisions through anecdotes and personal experiences rather than by citing data. They left it to the superintendent to interpret the data and recommend solutions. 6. Effective school boards align and sustain resources, such as professional development, to meet district goals. According to researchers LaRocque and Coleman, effective boards saw a responsibility to maintain high standards even in the midst of budget challenges. “To this end, the successful boards supported extensive professional development programs for administrators and teachers, even during times of [fiscal] restraint.” In low-achieving districts, however, board members said teachers made their own decisions on staff development based on perceived needs in the classroom or for certification. 7. Effective school boards lead as a united team with the superintendent, each from their respective roles, with strong collaboration and mutual trust. In successful districts, boards defined an initial vision for the district and sought a superintendent who matched this vision. In contrast, in stagnant districts, boards were slow to define a vision and often recruited a superintendent with his or her own ideas and platform, leading the board and superintendent to not be in alignment. (MDRC/Council of Great City Schools) 8. Effective school boards take part in team development and training, sometimes with their superintendents, to build shared knowledge, values and commitments for their improvement efforts. High-achieving districts had formal, deliberate training for new board members. They also often gathered to discuss specific topics. Low-achieving districts had board members who said they did not learn together except when the superintendent or other staff members made presentations of data. (Lighthouse I; LFA; LaRocque and Coleman)

Though the research on school board effectiveness is in the beginning stages, the studies included in this report make it clear that school boards in high-achieving districts have attitudes, knowledge and approaches that separate them from their counterparts in lower-achieving districts. In this era of fiscal constraints and a national environment focused on accountability, boards in high-performing districts can provide an important blueprint for success. In the process, they can offer a road map for school districts nationwide.

Posted January 28, 2011. Copyright Center for Public Education. This summary is based on a report written for the Center for Public Education by Chuck Dervarics and Eileen O'Brien.


Works Cited Government of Ontario. Education Act. Sept 12, 2012. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90e02_e.htm (accessed May 1, 2013).

Niven, Paul R. Balanced Scorecard: Step-by-Step for Government and Nonprofit Agencies. New York: Wiley, 2008.

Parmenter, David. Key Performance Indicators for Government and Non Profit. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2012.

Wynne, Hon Kathleen, Minister of Education. "Bill 177, Student Achievement and School Board Governance Act, 2009." Bills. 2009. http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=2187.

Next Level Driven · 2019-05-29 · NEXT LEVEL DRIVEN 5 Administration had developed metrics and...

Documents

Transcript of Next Level Driven · 2019-05-29 · NEXT LEVEL DRIVEN 5 Administration had developed metrics and...