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) Page 1 of 116
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) Page 1 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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 2 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 3 of 116
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.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 4 of 116
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.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 5 of 116
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).
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 6 of 116
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.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 7 of 116
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.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 8 of 116
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.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 9 of 116
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.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 10 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 11 of 116
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.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 12 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 13 of 116
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.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 14 of 116
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%]
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 15 of 116
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%
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 16 of 116
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.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 17 of 116
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.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 18 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 19 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 20 of 116
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.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 21 of 116
21
October 2020
Percent Time Focused on Goal Monitoring versus Management
Inquiry
Benchmark: Needs Improvement
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 22 of 116
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.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 23 of 116
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
Benchmark: Needs Improvement
35.6%
0.0%7.8%
56.6%
Bridging Events Anti-Bridging Events Bonding Events Anti-Bonding Events
Bridging versus Bonding Actions
Percent
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 24 of 116
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.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 25 of 116
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
[2016 Score = 11.3] Proficient
#5. Using Data for Continuous Improvement:
[Score = 6.4] Developing to Growth Required
[2016 Score = 7.1] Developing
#2. Community Engagement: [Score = 6.2] Developing to Growth Required
[2016 Score = 9.4] Developing
#7. Culture and Climate: [Score = 5.5] Growth Required to Developing
[2016 Score = 11.3] Proficient
#4. Accountability: [Score = 5.3] Growth Required
[2016 Score = 7.1] Developing
#11. Board Member Conduct, Ethics, and Relationship with Superintendent:
[Score = 4.5] Growth Required
[2016 Score = 8.5] Developing
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 26 of 116
26
October 2020
#9. Systems Thinking: [Score = 4.5] Growth Required
[2016 Score = 7.0] Developing
#3. Effective Leadership: [Score = 3.8] Growth Required
[2016 Score = 6.4] Developing
#8. Learning Organizations: [Score = 3.6] Growth Required
[2016 Score = 8.4] Developing
#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 #5, Indicator 5
Standard #7, Indicator 1
Standard #8, Indicator 3
Standard #9, Indicator 5
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 27 of 116
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.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 28 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 29 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 30 of 116
30
October 2020
Standard #1: Vision-Directed Planning
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 31 of 116
31
October 2020
Standard #1: Vision-Directed Planning
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 32 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 33 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 34 of 116
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 Developing for Indicators 1, 2, 4 and 5.
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 35 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 36 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 37 of 116
37
October 2020
Standard #3: Effective Leadership
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 38 of 116
38
October 2020
Standard #3: Effective Leadership
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 39 of 116
39
October 2020
Standard #3: Effective Leadership
Indicator #9: Board members understand and are knowledgeable about
school improvement initiatives and their role in supporting those
initiatives.
Results:
This standard was ranked 10th of the 12 Standards and given an overall rating of
Growth Required. This area was rated as Developing in 2016. The following results
summarize rating on Standard 3.
Rating of Proficient for no Indicator.
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 40 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 41 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 42 of 116
42
October 2020
Standard #4: Accountability
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 43 of 116
43
October 2020
Standard #4: Accountability
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 44 of 116
44
October 2020
Standard #4: Accountability
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
Growth Required. This area was rated as Developing in 2016. The following results
summarize rating on Standard 4.
Rating of Proficient for Indicator 7.
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 45 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 46 of 116
46
October 2020
Standard #5: Using Data for Continuous Improvement and
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 47 of 116
47
October 2020
Standard #5: Using Data for Continuous Improvement and
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 48 of 116
48
October 2020
Standard #5: Using Data for Continuous Improvement and
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:
This standard was ranked 4th of the 12 Standards and given an overall rating of
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 Proficient for no Indicator.
Rating of Developing for Indicators 1, 3, 6 and 7.
Rating of Grow Required for Indicators 2, 4, and 5.
Split response for Indicators 6 and 7.
1
6
0
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Growth Required
Developing
Proficient
Distinguished
# of Responses
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 49 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 50 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 51 of 116
51
October 2020
Standard #6: Cultural Responsiveness
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 52 of 116
52
October 2020
Standard #6: Cultural Responsiveness
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
summarize rating on Standard 6.
Rating of Proficient for Indicator 2.
Rating of Developing for Indicators 1 and 7.
Rating of Grow Required for Indicators 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Split response for Indicators 2 and 6.
2
5
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Growth Required
Developing
Proficient
Distinguished
# of Responses
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 53 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 54 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 55 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 56 of 116
56
October 2020
Results:
This standard was ranked 6th of the 12 Standards and given an overall rating of
Growth Required. This area was rated as Developing in 2016. The following results
summarize rating on Standard 7.
Rating of Proficient for no Indicator.
Rating of Developing for Indicators 4, 5 and 6.
Rating of Grow Required for Indicators 1, 2, and 3.
Split response for Indicator 6.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 57 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 58 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 59 of 116
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:
This standard was ranked 11th of the 12 Standards and given an overall rating of
Growth Required. This area was rated as Developing to Proficient in 2016. The
following results summarize rating on Standard 8.
Rating of Proficient for no Indicator.
Rating of Developing for no Indicators.
Rating of Grow Required for all Indicators.
5
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Growth Required
Developing
Proficient
Distinguished
# of Responses
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 60 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 61 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 62 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 63 of 116
63
October 2020
Results:
This standard was ranked 9th of the 12 Standards and given an overall rating of
Growth Required. This area was rated as Developing in 2016. The following results
summarize rating on Standard 9.
Rating of Proficient for no Indicator.
Rating of Developing for Indicators 1 and 2.
Rating of Grow Required for Indicators 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 64 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 65 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 66 of 116
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:
This standard was ranked 12th of the 12 Standards and given an overall rating of
Growth Required. This area was rated as Developing in 2016. The following results
summarize rating on Standard 10.
Rating of Proficient for no Indicator.
Rating of Developing for no Indicators.
Rating of Grow Required for all Indicators.
7
1
0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Growth Required
Developing
Proficient
Distinguished
# of Responses
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 67 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 68 of 116
68
October 2020
Standard #11: Board Member Conduct, Ethics and Relationship with
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 69 of 116
69
October 2020
Standard #11: Board Member Conduct, Ethics and Relationship with
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 70 of 116
70
October 2020
Standard #11: Board Member Conduct, Ethics and Relationship with
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 71 of 116
71
October 2020
Standard #11: Board Member Conduct, Ethics and Relationship with
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 72 of 116
72
October 2020
Results:
This standard was ranked 8th of the 12 Standards and given an overall rating of
Growth Required. This area was rated as Proficient in 2016. The following results
summarize rating on Standard 11.
Rating of Proficient for no Indicator.
Rating of Developing for Indicators 5 and 10.
Rating of Grow Required for Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9.
Split response for Indicators 5, 7, 9, and 10.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 73 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 74 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 75 of 116
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
summarize rating on Standard 12.
Rating of Proficient for all Indicators.
Rating of Developing for no Indicator.
Rating of Grow Required for no Indicator.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 76 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 77 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 78 of 116
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
2016 Rating: Developing
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
3 3
5 5 5
3
4
11
2
8
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 79 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 80 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 81 of 116
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
2016 Rating: Developing
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
9
13
7
0 0
7
2 2
4 4
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 82 of 116
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
Rating: Growth Required
2016 Rating: Developing
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
5
9
4 4
3
4
6
7
6
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 83 of 116
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
Rating: Growth Required
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 84 of 116
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
Rating: Growth Required
2016 Rating: Proficient
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
3
6
10
4 4
0
6
4
8
4
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 85 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 86 of 116
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.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 87 of 116
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:
Measurable Goal 1.3 X
Strategic Area 2:
Measureable Goal 2.1 X
Strategic Area 2:
Measureable Goal 2.2 X
Strategic Area 2:
Measurable Goal 2.3 X
Strategic Area 3:
Measureable Goal 3.1 X
Strategic Area 3:
Measureable Goal 3.2
X
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 88 of 116
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,
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 89 of 116
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.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 90 of 116
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.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 91 of 116
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.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 92 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 93 of 116
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).
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 94 of 116
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.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 95 of 116
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.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 96 of 116
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).
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 97 of 116
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.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 98 of 116
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.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 99 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 100 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 101 of 116
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)
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 102 of 116
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.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 103 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 104 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 105 of 116
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?
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 106 of 116
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.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 107 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 108 of 116
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.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 109 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 110 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 111 of 116
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.
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 112 of 116
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
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 113 of 116
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?
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 114 of 116
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)
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 115 of 116
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?
Reference 3.02 (B) Page 116 of 116