�鶹��

The Board does not have a vision.

The Board does not have goals.

The Board does not consistently distinguish between inputs (resources and activities invested in a particular program or strategy; usually knowable at the beginning of a cycle; a measure of effort applied), outputs (the result of a particular set of inputs; usually knowable in the midst of a cycle; a measure of the implementation of the program or strategy), and outcomes (the impact of the program or strategy; usually knowable at the end of a cycle; a measure of the effect on the intended beneficiary).

The Board has a Board-adopted vision statement.

The Board has Board-adopted goals.

The Board owned the vision development process while working collaboratively with the Superintendent.

The Board owned the goals development process while working collaboratively with the Superintendent.

The Board has adopted no fewer than 1 and no more than 5 goals. Three is the recommended number.

And...

Each goal describes a baseline (current state), a target (future state), a population (which students will be impacted), and a deadline (date by when the current state will equal the future state). (e.g. "[population]'s ability to demonstrate [measure] is currently at [baseline] and will be at [target] by [deadline]" or "The number of high performing campuses will increase from [baseline] to [target] by [deadline]")

The deadline for each goal to reach target is no fewer than 3 years away. No more than 5 years are recommended.

The Board has adopted an annual target for each goal in addition to its deadline target.

And...

The goals are all student outcome goals (they all describe what students know or are able to do) as distinct from adult inputs, adult outputs, student inputs, and student outputs.

All Trustees and the Superintendent agree that the student outcome goals are all SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, results-focused, time-bound), but will challenge the organization and require adult behavior change.

The Board relied on a root cause analysis, comprehensive student needs assessment, and/ or similar researchbased tool to inform identification of and prioritization of potential student outcome goals.

And...

Students, families, teachers, and community members were involved in the vision and student outcome goals development process in such a manner that there is broad community acceptance of the Board's vision and student outcome goals.

All Trustees have committed the vision and student outcome goals to memory and know, at all times, the current status of each student outcome goal.

The Board does not have goal progress measures (GPMs) (specific graph plottable indicators used to determine if the goal is likely to be met or not.

The Board is treating annual targets for the student outcome goals as if they are GPMs (annual targets for student outcome goals are never goal progress measures).

The Board has Board-adopted GPMs for each student outcome goal.

The Superintendent owned the GPM development process while working collaboratively with the Board.

The current status of the GPMs that were adopted is able to be updated at least 4 times per year.

And...

Each GPM includes a baseline, a target, a population, and a deadline. (e.g. "Percent and/or number of [population]'s [measure] currently at [baseline] will be [target] by [deadline]" or "Percent of students completing algebra by the end of 9th grade will grow from [baseline] to [target] by [deadline]")

The deadline for each GPM to reach target is no more than 5 years away. One to three year GPM deadlines are recommended.

The Board has adopted an annual target for each GPM in addition to its deadline target.

he Board has adopted no fewer than 1 and no more than 3 GPMs for each student outcome goal.

And...

The GPMs are all student outputs or student outcomes, as distinct from adult inputs, adult outputs, and student inputs. GPMs are most commonly student outputs.

All Trustees and the Superintendent agree that the GPMs are all SMART.

All Trustees and the Superintendent agree that the GPMs are all predictive of their respective student outcome goals, and are influenceable by the Superintendent. Predictive suggests that there is some evidence of a correlation between the progress measure and the goal. Influenceable suggests that the Superintendent has authority over roughly 80% of whatever the progress measure is measuring.

And...

Students, families, teachers, and community members were involved in the GPM development process in such a way that there is broad community acceptance of the Board's GPMs.

The Board does not have a vision.

The Board does not have constraints (specific prohibitions on Superintendent authority that are aligned with the vision and grounded in community values).

The Board has a Board-adopted vision statement.

The Board has Board-adopted constraints.

The Board owned the vision development process while working collaboratively with the Superintendent.

The Board owned the constraint development process while working collaboratively with the Superintendent.

The Board has adopted no fewer than 1 and no more than 5 constraints. Three is the recommended number.

And...

Each constraint describes a single operational action or class of actions the Superintendent may not use or allow. (e.g. "Do not allow hiring criteria at low performing campuses to require less than 2 years of in-role experience and/or demonstrated effectiveness at improving student outcomes" or "Do not allocate resources/ funds in a manner that disadvantages students in low performing campuses" or "Do not allow the number of students in low performing campuses to increase or remain the same")

And...

All Trustees and the Superintendent agree that the constraints are all SMART.

Separate from the constraints on the Superintendent's authority, the Board has adopted 3 to 5 self-constraints on its own behavior and selfevaluates against them each month.

And...

References to research that suggests alignment with the vision are cited for constraints where appropriate.

The Board, in collaboration with the Superintendent, has adopted one or more theories of action (high level strategic constraints to which all District inputs and outputs must be aligned; they do not have CPMs) to drive overall strategic direction. Research has been cited for each theory of action.

Students, families, teachers, and community members were involved in the vision and constraint development process in such a manner that there is broad community acceptance of the Board's vision and constraints.

The Board does not have constraint progress measures (CPMs) (specific graph-plottable indicators used to determine if the constraint is likely to be avoided or not.

The Board has Board-adopted CPMs for each constraint.

The Superintendent owned the CPM development process while working collaboratively with the Board.

The current status of the CPMs that were adopted is able to be updated at least 4 times per year.

And...

Each CPM describes a baseline, a target, and a deadline. (e.g. "Percent of teachers teaching at low performing campuses who are first year teachers will decline from [baseline] to [target] by [deadline]" or "Percent of campuses funded using an equitable student-based budgeting formula will increase from [baseline] to [target] by [deadline]")

The Board has adopted no fewer than 1 and no more than 3 CPMs for each constraint.

The deadline for each CPM to reach target is no more than 5 years away. One to three year CPM deadlines are recommended.

The Board has adopted an annual target for each CPM in addition to its deadline target.

And...

All Trustees and the Superintendent agree that the CPMs are all SMART.

All Trustees and the Superintendent agree that the CPMs are all predictive of their respective constraints, and are influenceable by the Superintendent. Predictive suggests that there is some evidence of a correlation between the progress measure and the constraint. Influenceable suggests that the Superintendent has authority over roughly 80% of whatever the progress measure is measuring.

And...

Students, families, teachers, and community members were involved in the CPM development process in such a manner that there is broad community acceptance of the Board's CPMs.

The Board has adopted no fewer than 1 and no more than 3 Board self-constraint progress measures (SCPMs) for each of the selfconstraints the Board adopted.