SAMPLE BOARD SELF-ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT

Meeting Evaluation

DIRECTIONS: By evaluating our past meeting performance, we can discover ways to make future meetings shorter and more productive. Check each item "Adequate” or "Needs Improvement.” If you check "Needs Improvement,” include suggestions for improvement.

Adequate Needs Improvement

_________ _________ Our meeting was businesslike and results oriented, and we functioned as a team. _________ _________ Our discussion was cordial and well balanced (not dominated by just a few members). _________ _________ We confined our discussion to agenda items only.

_________ _________ Our agenda included positive issues as well as problems.

_________ _________ We discussed policy issues rather than day-to-day management issues.

_________ _________ We followed parliamentary rules and consulted legal or professional counsel when needed. _________ _________ The chairperson controlled and guided the meeting.

_________ _________ We dealt successfully with controversial items and attempted to develop solutions acceptable to all members.

_________ _________ Everyone contributed to the meeting.

_________ _________ All members were prepared to discuss material that was sent to them in advance.

_________ _________ Reports were clear and well prepared and provided adequate information for decision- making.

_________ _________ Printed materials given to us were easy to understand and use.

_________ _________ Our meeting room was comfortable and conducive to discussion and decision-making. _________ _________ All members were in attendance and on time, and the meeting began and concluded on

time.

_________ _________ For committees and ad hoc groups: There was adequate reason for us to meet. My best suggestion for improving our next meeting is...

Source: Created by MGT of America, 2005.

This assessment could be completed online and submitted in advance of the sessions to the facilitator of the board retreats. The results could then be utilized to guide a discussion of board effectiveness.

FISCAL IMPACT

This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources, requiring a minimum of staff time since a draft has already been prepared. Only the time to contact the VSBA to obtain additional evaluation options and review for possible inclusions in the current superintendent evaluation draft is needed. It is estimated this should take no more than 1 hour of clerical time and a work session with the Board to finalize the instrument.

FINDING

The school board developed and adopted policy CBG to guide the assessment of the superintendent’s performance in early March 2006. However, a performance review instrument that has been drafted has not yet been approved for implementation.

On October 10, 2006, a third draft was submitted to the superintendent for review; however, this draft has not yet been finalized or adopted.

The performance objectives for the 2006-07 school year as reflected in the October 10, 2006, draft document, included the following six measures:

„ Specific progress towards Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). „ Progress towards meeting AMOs by state-reported subgroups. „ Eighty-five percent of the schools are fully accredited status and no

schools are denied accreditation.

„ Establish divisionwide process(es) that measure employee engagement/satisfaction and include action plans to address significant issues.

„ Major capital expense projects are completed within two weeks of approved completion date and within agreed upon budget.

„ Division accreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS).

MGT believes that implementation of these benchmarks at this late date is not appropriate for assessing the superintendent’s performance for the current school year. RECOMMENDATION 2-4:

Seek assistance from the Virginia School Boards Association to finalize the superintendent performance assessment system and begin implementation for the 2007-08 school year.

Developing and adopting a uniform assessment procedure that is used by the entire school board could result in a cohesive series of recommendations. An evaluation that could be used as a basis for discussion and the formulation of procedures that are acceptable to RCPS and the superintendent could include the following features:

„ Establishment of a specific time frame each year for conducting the performance evaluation.

„ A specific list of board/superintendent goals that are related to school performance and other indicators.

„ Provision for establishing performance goals and related outcomes for the next year.

„ Provision for the individual board members to rate the superintendent on an approved form that includes board goals.

„ Provision for all board members to meet to compile board member ratings, discuss all aspects of the superintendent’s performance, and develop a single evaluation report to be reviewed with the superintendent.

„ Guidelines for the actual evaluation review session (e.g., in closed session with the board chair as spokesperson).

The board could seek assistance from the VSBA in completing the development of the tool for the superintendent’s evaluation.

FISCAL IMPACT

This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources, requiring a minimum of staff time since a suggested form has been provided by MGT consultants. Time involved should include less than 1 hour clerical and a work session by the Board to finalize the instrument.

2.3 Policies and Procedures

Commonwealth of Virginia law (22.1-253.13:7) contains specific provisions governing school board policy. The law requires that policies be up to date, reviewed at least every five years, and revised as needed. The policies must address the following eight overall areas:

„ A system of two-way communication between employees and the local school board and its administrative staff.

„ The selection and evaluation of all instructional materials purchased by the division, with clear procedures for handling challenged controversial materials.

„ Standards of student conduct and attendance, and related enforcement procedures.

„ School-community communications and involvement.

„ Guidelines to encourage parents to provide instructional assistance to their children.

„ Information about procedures for addressing school division concerns with defined recourse for parents.

„ A cooperatively developed procedure for personnel evaluation.

„ Grievance, dismissal procedures, and other procedures as prescribed by the general assembly and school board.

Each division school has a copy of the RCPS policy manual, as does the public library. The policy manual has been placed online and, in accord with a January 2006 recommendation by consultants, now can be regularly accessed.

Policies are overseen and managed in the superintendent’s office by the school board clerk/executive assistant to the superintendent. The official policy manual is located in the superintendent’s office.

The policies have been codified using the National School Board Association’s model with specific model policy language procured from the VSBA. The policy manual is composed of 12 sections (“A” through “L”), each containing a detailed table of contents. Individual policies are coded within these sections. An alphabetical subject index can be found in the back of the document, behind Section L policy provisions.

Exhibit 2-4 presents the RCPS policy manual classifications (sections), titles, and policy codes.

EXHIBIT 2-4

ROANOKE CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS SCHOOL BOARD