Strategic Planning for K-12 Districts · the strategic planning process within a school or calendar year. This trend was consistently found in our research on strategic plans in K-12

Hanover Research | January 2013

© 2012 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 1

In the following report, Hanover Research provides information on strategic planning in K-12 public school districts. Specifically, this report focuses on the planning process and the desired outcomes of strategic plans. Four school districts of are profiled in more detail.

Strategic Planning for K-12 Districts

January 2013



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary and Key Findings ............................................................................... 3

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 3

KEY FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................. 3

Section I: Strategic Planning Process ................................................................................. 5

OVERALL VISION AND MISSION ...................................................................................................... 5

GOALS AND MEASUREMENTS ........................................................................................................ 6

TIMELINES ................................................................................................................................. 9

STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED ........................................................................................................... 10

PLANNING GROUP ..................................................................................................................... 11

SPECIFIC STRATEGIC PLAN WEBSITE.............................................................................................. 12

Section II: Outcomes and Challenges .............................................................................. 13

Section III: Profiles ......................................................................................................... 16

BEAVERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT – BEAVERTON, OREGON .................................................................... 16

DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT – PHOENIX, ARIZONA .......................................................... 21

FORSYTH COUNTY SCHOOLS – CUMMING, GEORGIA ........................................................................ 23

LINCOLN PUBLIC SCHOOLS – LINCOLN, NEBRASKA ............................................................................ 25



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS INTRODUCTION In this report, Hanover Research provides information on strategic planning in K-12 public school districts. Specifically, this report focuses on the components of a strategic plan, the process used to create a strategic plan, and the desired outcomes of strategic plans. In order to derive best practices from school districts comparable in size to our partner School District, peer districts were identified using National Center for Education Statistics data.1 The report is structured as follows:

Section One: This section on the strategic planning process includes information about the components of a K-12 strategic plan, including the overall vision and mission, the goals of the plan and measurements for achieving the goals, the timelines used during the planning process, the stakeholders involved in both the planning process and the implementation of the plan, the composition of a planning or steering group, and the use of a specific strategic plan website to coordinate the sharing of information about the planning process and the strategic plan itself.

Section Two: Describing challenges during the strategic plan development process and implementation, this section presents information on the outcomes of the strategic planning process.

Section Three: This section presents profiles of four public school districts and of their strategic planning processes.

KEY FINDINGS

Common components of a K-12 strategic plan are the overall vision and mission, the goals of the plan and measurements for achieving the goals. Common components of the planning process are the timeline used during the planning process, the stakeholders involved, the composition of a planning or steering group, and the use of a specific strategic plan website to coordinate the sharing of information about the planning process and the strategic plan itself.

The four school districts profiled in Section III each completed or plan to complete the strategic planning process within a school or calendar year. This trend was consistently found in our research on strategic plans in K-12 schools.

K-12 strategic plans tend to involve common stakeholder groups in both the development and the implementation of the strategic plan. Key groups included are the district leadership (e.g., superintendent, governing board, and superintendent’s office staff), school administrators, teachers, parents, students, and community members (e.g., local business owners and education experts).

1 “Search for Public School Districts.” National Center for Education Statistics.



Common teams associated with the strategic planning process are the planning team (or steering committee) and action teams. A planning team or steering committee is often the group in charge of the strategic planning process and of distributing responsibilities as needed. Planning and steering committees often create action groups to address specific needs within the planning process.

While some challenges that public school districts face during the strategic planning process and implementation are unique to the district, there are also common challenges in district strategic planning. These can include problems with communication or lack of community participation; a lack of vision, leadership, or sense of urgency; and structural problems related to staff capacity, funding, or entrenched cultural attitudes.



SECTION I: STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS The first section of this report presents common components of K-12 strategic plans. Throughout this section, general trends are discussed and examples are provided to demonstrate the ways in which these components are implemented in school districts around the country. Common components of a K-12 strategic plan that are discussed in this section are the overall vision and mission, the goals of the plan and measurements for achieving the goals. Common components of the planning process are also discussed, including the timelines used during the planning process, the stakeholders involved, the composition of a planning or steering group, and the use of a specific strategic plan website to coordinate the sharing of information about the planning process and the strategic plan itself. OVERALL VISION AND MISSION A common introduction to a strategic plan is the presentation of the vision and mission statement of the school system. This provides a context for the goals that are to follow, as well as an introduction to the document. Below, we present the Harford County Board of Education’s vision and mission for the district, from its strategic plan. Figure 1.1: Presentation of Vision and Mission in the Harford County (Maryland) Board of

Education Strategic Plan

Source: Harford County Board of Education 2

2 “Harford County Board of Education Strategic Plan.” Harford County Board of Education.

http://www.hcps.org/aboutus/docs/Strategic_Implementation_Plan.pdf



This statement of mission, vision, and beliefs is fairly typical in setting out broad guidelines for the district’s strategic direction (e.g., “excellence,” working “collaboratively”). However, it also sets out specific areas in which these broad goals must be carried out, such as setting high standards for students, recruiting quality staff, or engaging in effective communication with stakeholders. GOALS AND MEASUREMENTS Core components of strategic plans include the goals for the district over the allotted time frame of the strategic plan and the measurements that will be used to track the achievement of these goals. The examples below demonstrate how goals and the measurements to achieve and measure those goals are presented in multiple districts. The Ysleta Independent School District’s (Texas) 2014 Strategic Plan, approved in December 2011, consists of five areas of focus: addressing student achievement; establishing community partnerships; increasing the use of technology in schools; improving school facilities; and improving the quality of school employees. Each focus area is supported by specific measurements, providing specific goals for achievement and action steps guiding the pathway to success:3 Student Learning and Performance

o Measurement: Ysleta ISD will demonstrate an increase in student achievement with 90% of the students achieving more than a year’s worth of growth per year.

Develop & Grow Strategic Partnerships o Measurement: Ysleta ISD will increase partnerships by 20%. 100% of

graduating students will have a plan for college and/or career. Teaching & Learning through Technology

o Measurement: Ysleta ISD technology infrastructure will be capable of supporting at least 90% of all academic and service demands by the 2014-2015 school year, resulting in increased innovation and improved organizational effectiveness

Operational Success o Measurement: Ensure 100% of school facilities are safe and conducive to

learning by passing a $100M bond issue to upgrade heating, ventilation, air conditioning and electrical components of existing schools by 2014. Develop plan, by 2014, to build at least one new middle school and one new elementary school.

Employee Engagement & Development o Measurement: Maintain 100% highly qualified status and zero Class-size

Reduction Waiver status. Maintain competitive benefits and compensation

3 Bullet Points Taken Verbatim From: “2014 Strategic Plan.” Ysleta Independent School District.

http://www.yisd.net/Portals/yisd/Files/Documents/2014_Strategic_Plan.pdf



package based on industry standards. Achieve a fully integrated paperless work flow process by 2014.

The notable characteristics of these goals are their simplicity and their concreteness, including the use of quantitative measures where appropriate. By keeping goals simple and clear, it becomes easier to identify the necessary steps to achieve them. By setting concrete objectives, including quantitative measures where appropriate, the district ensures accountability by allowing for a clear determination of whether the goals have been met or not. A slightly different approach can be seen in the strategic plan of the Rutherford County Schools (North Carolina), adopted for the years 2010-2015. For each of the six goals in the strategic plan, following the listing of the goal and the strategy to accomplish that goal, the measurable outcomes and action steps are detailed, as can be seen in the figure below.

Figure 1.2: Rutherford County Schools Measurement Outcomes and Action Steps

Source: Rutherford County Schools4 Although the Rutherford County Schools plan identifies concrete measures, however, it does not specify quantitative benchmarks. Thus, although the “dropout rate” or “SAT scores” are identified as measures of the goal of graduating students ready for college or employment, there is no indication of what levels in these measurements would constitute success or failure.

4 “Rutherford County Schools Strategic Plan 2010-2015.” Rutherford County Schools.

http://www.rcsnc.org/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=15046327



By contrast, the Harford County Board of Education strategic plan identifies the baseline measurements for its goals, so that progress can be monitored. Although it does not set specific quantitative targets (e.g., “increase graduation rate by X%”), by identifying the baseline measurement it makes it possible to know if improvement has taken place to any degree. The table below reproduces the measurements for one of the goals in Harford County’s plan. As can be seen, the measures for Year 2 (as well as for Year 3, not reproduced here) are non-specific imperatives, generally to “increase” the relevant measure. However, the inclusion of a baseline measure (e.g., an 88 percent graduation rate in 2010) makes it possible to know whether an increase has in fact taken place. Figure 1.3: Baseline Measurements in the Harford County Board of Education Strategic Plan MEASURE OF PROGRESS -YEAR 1 (BASELINE) MEASURE OF PROGRESS -YEAR 2

Goal 1: To prepare every student for success in postsecondary education and a career Increase student achievement based on AYP indicators Increase student achievement based on AYP indicators

Increase the graduation rate. The graduation rate for the baseline year of 2009-2010 is 88%. Increase the graduation rate

Increase the percent of graduates who register as full or part-time postsecondary students. The baseline year is 2008-09 and

the rate is 64%.

Increase the percent of graduates who register as full or part-time postsecondary students.

Increase number of students earning college credit in institutions of higher education prior to graduation

Increase number of students earning college credit in institutions of higher learning prior to graduation

Increase the number of college credit courses offered in the Harford County Public Schools such as AP, IB and online. The

AP/IB courses for baseline year 2010-2011 is 250 across all high schools.

Increase the number of college credit courses offered in the Harford County Public Schools such as AP, IB and online.

High schools will meet or exceed the national average for critical reading, mathematics, and writing scores on the SAT or the ACT.

SAT scores for the baseline year of 2009-10 are math 523, critical reading 507 and writing 483. The ACT composite score

for the baseline year 2009-2010 is 23.

High schools will meet or exceed the national average for critical reading, mathematics, and writing scores on the SAT or the ACT.

Increase the number of graduates who meet the MSDE University System of Maryland Completer. The baseline year is

2009-10 and is 48%.

Increase the number of graduates who meet the MSDE University System of Maryland Completer.

Review the number of students in each pathway/completer Review the number of students in each pathway/completer Source: Harford County Board of Education5 5 “Harford County Board of Education Strategic Plan.” Op. cit.



TIMELINES The four school districts profiled in Section III each completed or plan to complete the strategic planning process within a school or calendar year. This trend was consistently found in our research on strategic plans in K-12 schools. Below is an example of such a timeline, from the Henrico County Public Schools (Virginia).

Figure 1.4: Henrico County Public Schools Strategic Plan Process Timeline DATE OBJECTIVE

October 9, 2009 Community Priorities Workshop (CPW) Identify seven key priorities during the CPW to support the Strategic Planning

Steering Committee December 19, 2009 School Board approval of HCPS strategic planning process

January 8, 2010 Form Steering Committee Form a thirty-one member steering committee that includes representative from

various stakeholder groups

January 25-27, 2010

Steering Committee meeting Steering Committee identifies common beliefs, develops a mission statement,

identifies decision-making parameters, and develops five goals and associated objectives.

January 28, 2010 School Board accepts draft strategic plan

February- Mid March, 2010 Draft plan communicated to the community for information and to solicit interest in action teams Action teams develop specific implementation plans for each objective

Mid March - May, 2010 Action teams develop implementation plans School division personnel lead teams. Whenever possible, team membership is a

cross-section of the school/ community stakeholder groups.

June 2010 Action teams present implementation plans to the steering committee Action team leaders present to steering committee

June 2010 Public hearing on draft strategic plan Receive comments on all aspects of the plan

August 2010 School Board approves final plan Source: Henrico County Public Schools6 The Henrico County Public Schools’ timeline shows the stages that a strategic planning process moves through. Starting from the broadest level (i.e., the community), the planning moves to increasingly smaller groups – first, the steering committee, and then the action teams – focusing on increasingly detailed aspects of the plan. Thus, the community priorities workshop, an evening program with over 100 stakeholders including students, teachers, administrators and district staff, parents, businesses, civic and faith-based organizations, legislators, and school board members, provided the broad goals for the planning process.7 Next, the 31-person steering committee gave the plan its general outlines, including the mission statement and major goals. Then, action teams worked on specific goals and objectives. Throughout this process, the products of the planning process were referred to the other bodies involved for comment and approval. Thus, the steering 6 “Timeline.” Henrico County Public Schools. http://www.henrico.k12.va.us/StrategicPlan/Timeline.html 7 “2009-2010 Community Priorities Workshop.” Henrico County Public Schools.

http://www.henrico.k12.va.us/pdf/strategicplan/CPWBookletFinal.pdf



committee presented its draft plan to the school board, and the school board communicated it to the public; the action teams referred their work to the steering committee, which again submitted its final draft for public comment and final school board approval. As the Henrico County timeline demonstrates, time must be allowed at each stage of the process, both for the various bodies to complete their assigned task and for other constituencies to respond to the results.

STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED K-12 strategic plans tend to incorporate common stakeholder groups throughout both the development and the implementation of the strategic plan. Key groups included are the district leadership (e.g., superintendent, governing board, and superintendent’s office staff), school administrators, teachers, parents, students, and community members (e.g., local business owners and education experts).

Figure 1.5: Key Stakeholder Groups and Expectations, Deer Valley Unified School District KEY STAKEHOLDER KEY REQUIREMENTS EXPECTATIONS

Students Safe and secure environment Rigorous and engaging learning opportunities 21st Century Skills

Quality of education Embedded use of technology Program choice

Governing Board

Sound policy and procedures Productive relationship with the

Superintendent

Execution of policy and procedures with integrity Pro-active communication Fiscal responsibility

Parents

Safe and secure environment Rigorous and engaging learning opportunities 21st Century Skills Highly qualified workforce Effective and efficient operations

Pro-active communication Program choice College and career ready with minimal remediation

Administrative Employees

Continuous improvement PD Salary and benefits Safe working environment

Shared governance Conditions conducive to student learning Appropriate technology Communication Ethical leadership

Certified Employees

Safe working environment Curriculum materials and resources Salary and benefits Continuous improvement PD

Conditions conducive to student learning Ethical leadership Appropriate technology Communication

Community Well educated students Good citizenship

Access to key leaders College and career ready graduates

Business Partners

Workforce ready 21st Century Skills

Minimal retraining Effective work habits and ethics

Institutions of Higher

Education

Research Dual credit opportunities for DVUSD students ASU Professional Development

Students choose postsecondary education Minimal remediation 21st Century Skills Effective student work habits and ethics

Source: Deer Valley Unified School District8

8 “Organizational Profile.” Deer Valley Unified School District.

http://www.dvusd.org/docs/strategicPlan/Organizational_Profile.pdf



The table above details the key stakeholder groups identified by Deer Valley Unified School District (Arizona) in its strategic planning process, along with the requirements and expectations of each group. It will be noted that this selection of stakeholders is similar to, e.g., the groups of stakeholders consulted by Henrico County Public Schools in its Community Priorities Workshop; Deer Valley also includes institutions of higher education, which can be an important stakeholder for K-12 districts, as well as a source of expertise. As these arrays of stakeholders suggest, a key component of strategic planning is the solicitation of information from the community, which can be accomplished in various ways. Common options are surveys, focus groups, and information sessions. To promote transparency in the community input, some school districts publicize the results of these community input initiatives. For instance, Henrico County surveyed students, parents, staff, and local businesses using a survey developed by the National Center for School Leadership, and then posted the results of these surveys on the strategic plan website.9 PLANNING GROUP Planning groups, formed to take responsibility for various components of the planning process, are another common feature of district strategic planning. These bodies may be called a planning team, steering committee, action team, or some similar term, and may have different responsibilities depending on the structure of the planning process in a given district. Typically, a group such as this will be in charge of the strategic planning process and of distributing responsibilities for planning and implementation. Often, these planning groups will grow out of the stakeholder involvement process, as stakeholders are drafted into the planning groups. As an example, the stakeholders represented on the planning team for the strategic planning committee of the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools (California) are shown below, by constituency. Education

Assistant Superintendents, San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools

California State University, San Bernardino California School Employees Association (CSEA), Local Chapter

San Bernardino County Teachers Association (SBCTA)

San Bernardino County Board of Education San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Department of Education

Desert/Mountain Special Education Local Area Plan (SELPA)

Government

County of San Bernardino District Attorney’s Office San Bernardino County Sheriff-Coroner Department

County of San Bernardino Economic Development Agency 9 “Satisfaction Surveys.” Henrico County Public Schools. http://www.henrico.k12.va.us/ODQI/SatisfactionSurvey.html



Business Kelly Space and Technology, Inc. Andrew J. Jaramillo Insurance & Financial Services

Community Groups

Roman Catholic Diocese of San Bernardino Black Voice Foundation Central Labor Council AFL-CIO of Riverside/San Bernardino Counties Parent Representative10

Demonstrating a slightly different composition of stakeholders, the Henrico County Public Schools steering committee included: One school board member, two administrators, six teachers, nine community members, one student, and eight central office staff members.11 Planning and steering committees often create action groups to address specific needs within the planning process. Henrico County described the composition of the action groups used during its most recent strategic plan process. Each action group had between 8-15 members from a variety of stakeholder groups, and was led by an administrator with experience in the area being addressed by the action group.12

SPECIFIC STRATEGIC PLAN WEBSITE A best practice determined through our research highlights the value in having a website dedicated to the process of creating the strategic plan as well as the strategic plan itself. The St. Tammany Parish Public Schools (Louisiana) posts a document on its website that details the process used to develop the strategic plan, the timeline, the stakeholders, and the strategic plan itself.13 Similarly, the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools provides the planning timeline, the composition of the planning team and the action teams, a letter from the superintendent, and the strategic plan itself.14 In addition to posting detailed information on the planning process and the strategic plan itself, publically presenting the strategic plan through brochures and posters promotes the strategic plan and involves the community in the development of the strategic plan. Forsyth County Public Schools in Georgia provides a downloadable brochure and posters online that accompany the strategic plan.15 However, there are other districts who post only the completed version of the strategic plan online.16 While these districts do not post the information on the planning process, the ease in accessing the strategic plan from the website of the district or the school board provides a benefit to the community. 10 “2011-2012 Planning Team.” San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools.

http://strategic.sbcss.k12.ca.us/index.php/2011-2012-planning-team-resouce 11 “Plan Process.” Henrico County Public Schools. http://www.henrico.k12.va.us/StrategicPlan/PlanProcess.html 12 “Action Teams.” Henrico County Public Schools. http://www.henrico.k12.va.us/StrategicPlan/ActionTeams.html 13 “St. Tammany Parish Public Schools: A Strategy for Building Capacity.” St. Tammany Parish Public Schools.

http://www.stpsb.org/PDFFiles/strategicplan.pdf 14 “Strategic Planning.” San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools. http://strategic.sbcss.k12.ca.us/ 15 “Public Information and Communications.” Forsyth County Schools. http://www.forsyth.k12.ga.us/sp1316 16 See ”UCPS Strategic Plan 2011-2014.” Union County Public Schools. https://boe.ucps.k12.nc.us/



SECTION II: OUTCOMES AND CHALLENGES This section of the report describes challenges that can arise during the development and implementation of strategic plans, as well as discussing some optimal outcomes of the strategic planning process. While some challenges that public school districts face during the strategic plan planning process and implementation are unique to the district based on previous strategic plans, the political climate, and the relationship between the school system and the local community, there are also common challenges that many districts face based on the scope and potential effects of the endeavor of the creation and implementation of a strategic plan. Through a review of the literature, Hanover Research has identified a number of common challenges and obstacles that public school districts have faced through the process of developing and implementing a strategic plan. These are arrayed in the boxes below, organized by whether they arise during the planning stage and/or the implementation stage of the strategic plan.

Figure 2.1: Challenges Faced During the Planning Stage of Reform/Improvement

Lack of vision17 Interminable strategic planning processes18

Improvement proposals are vague, rife with jargon19 Reform based on popularity and intuition20

Lack of energy and urgency21

Planning and improvement processes are not participatory22

17 Jerald, C. “The Implementation Trap: Helping Schools Overcome Barriers to Change.” The Center for

Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. http://www.centerforcsri.org/files/August_Policy_Brief.pdf 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 “Seven Actions That Improve School District Performance.” “The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and

Improvement. http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_Seven_Actions/ Kerr, K., Marsh, J., Ikemoto, G., Darilek, H., & Barney, H. “Strategies to Promote Data Use for Instructional

Improvement: Actions, Outcomes, and Lessons from Three Urban Districts.” American Journal of Education 112, 496-520. http://ld6ela.edublogs.org/files/2008/07/data-article-Kerr-et-al.pdf

21 Jerald, C. Op. cit. 22 Ibid.



Figure 2.2: Challenges Faced During the Implementation Phase of Reform/Improvement “Scaling up” success across the

district23 Inappropriate or poor curriculum

sequencing and/or alignment24 Lack of accountability, review25

Lack of leadership26

Buy-in from teachers27 Energy surrounding reforms

dissipates28 Distractions from reform29

District/school conflict30

District/school board conflict31

Neglecting high-achieving students32

Staff capacity33

Funding shortfalls34

Cultural resistance35 Administrator unilateralism36

Budgetary and human resources autonomy37

Communication38

Many of these challenges are reflected in the outline of “strategic challenges” and “strategic advantages” prepared by the Deer Valley Unified School District as part of its strategic planning process, which is reproduced in the table below. For instance, “lack of energy and urgency” and “lack of accountability” have both been documented in the literature as potential obstacles; Deer Valley addresses both of these in calling for a “sense of urgency [...] to demand higher expectations and use an accountability system” in monitoring the district’s programs and services. Similarly, “communication” and conflicts among various constituencies, including individual schools, the district, and the school board, can often cause problems in the planning process; Deer Valley recognizes these kinds of challenges in calling for “effective two-way communication with stakeholders” and for “moving from a system of schools to a school system,” i.e., towards an integrated, unified organization. Although any given district will face its own set of challenges reflecting its particular

23 McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. “Reforming Districts: How Districts Support School Reform.” Center for the Study of

Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/ReformingDistricts-09-2003.pdf

24 “Seven Actions That Improve School District Performance.” Op. cit. 25 Ibid. 26 “Comprehensive School Improvement: Addressing the Challenges.” Southwest Educational Development

Laboratory. http://www.sedl.org/change/issues/issues91/4.html 27 Jerald, C. Op. cit.; “Seven Actions That Improve School District Performance.” Op. cit. 28 “Seven Actions That Improve School District Performance.” Op. cit. 29 McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. Op. cit.; “Comprehensive School Improvement: Addressing the Challenges.” Op. cit. 30 Jerald, C. Op. cit.; McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. Op. cit. 31 McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. Op. cit. 32 Marsh, J. & Robyn, A. “School and District Improvement Efforts in Response to the No Child Left Behind Act.”‖

RAND Working Paper. http://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/2006/RAND_WR382.pdf 33 Jerald, C. Op. cit.; “Comprehensive School Improvement: Addressing the Challenges.” Op. cit. 34 Marsh, J. & Robyn, A. Op. cit. 35 Jerald, C. Op. cit. 36 “Comprehensive School Improvement: Addressing the Challenges.” Op. cit. 37 Jerald, C. Op. cit. 38 “Comprehensive School Improvement: Addressing the Challenges.” Op. cit.



circumstances, similar themes are likely to crop up in the strategic planning process regardless of the district, as Deer Valley’s outline suggests.

Figure 2.3: Deer Valley Strategic Challenges and Advantages CATEGORY STRATEGIC CHALLENGES STRATEGIC ADVANTAGES

Program and Services

Establishing a sense of urgency among stakeholders to demand higher expectations and use an accountability system which monitors results and drives performance by delivering a guaranteed and viable curriculum

Development and delivery of formative and summative assessments across all grades and content areas

Establishing clear and concise focus to increase expectations and results

Meeting the social and emotional needs of all students

Developing a culture of continuous improvement through frequent monitoring of progress and sharing best practices

Deliberate efforts to build capacity through targeted professional development

Operational Documenting district processes Program evaluation utilizing an objective

process with return on investment principles

Department and school improvement planning processes and results

Societal Responsibility

Student performance that competes/ compares to national benchmarks

Moving from a system of schools to a school system in which structures and practices are implemented with a high level of quality that develops global leaders and decreases the student achievement gap

Effective two-way communication with stakeholders

Competition with Charter and Private schools

Establishing nonnegotiables system wide for fiscal responsibility, guaranteed and viable curriculum, CI, and hiring and retaining quality employees

Use critical data to drive change and create opportunities to build alliances across differences

Human Resources

Employee retention especially in high stress and highly competitive positions

Changing legal requirements regarding evaluation

Being fiscally creative to improve competitiveness for salaries and benefits

Nationally recognized for best practices in hiring processes

Development of succession plans for key campus positions

Commitment to staff improvement through mentoring, training, personal and professional development

Source: Deer Valley Unified School District39

39 “Organizational Profile.” Op. cit.



SECTION III: PROFILES This section of the report provides profiles of the strategic planning processes in specific districts that are comparable in size to our Partner, based on data reported to the National Center for Education Statistics.40 Focusing on the process used during the development of the strategic plans as well as the structure of the strategic plans, the goal of this section is to demonstrate several components of the planning and implementation process in conjunction with each other. BEAVERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT – BEAVERTON, OREGON During the 2008-2009 school year, the Beaverton School District developed a five-year strategic plan, led by the school board. The timeline for the development of the plan is shown in the figure below. As can be seen, it reflects the pattern discussed in Section I; spanning over the course of a year, the planning process starts at the broadest level (“engaging the community”) and is gradually refined into a more specific “plan to action.”

Figure 3.1: Beaverton School District Timeline

Source: Beaverton School District41

40 “Search for Public School Districts.” Op. cit. 41 “Shaping District Excellence: Strategic Planning Update.” Beaverton School District.

http://www.beaverton.k12.or.us/pdf/ci/ci_BSD%202%20pager%20FINAL%20101608.pdf



Working with Decisions Decisions, 42 a Portland-based consulting group specializing in planning for public and nonprofit agencies, the Beaverton School District developed a strategic plan with the following goals:

Build agreement within the District about our strengths and challenges, which will help us develop our vision, mission, values, beliefs and strategic directions.

Develop a clear understanding of our community needs and desires, and the District’s ability to address them.

Create a stronger and more cohesive organization by planning the direction of the District, putting that plan into action, and evaluating the work that we do.

To ensure that our strategic plan succeeds, inspire commitment and confidence among our key communities, including parents, students, teachers, administrators, neighbors, businesses and taxpayers.43

A document released at the beginning of the planning process in the fall of 2008 details the planning process for the school community. The planning process includes six steps, demonstrated in the graphic below.

Figure 3.2: Beaverton School District Planning Process

Source: Beaverton School District44

42 Information on the Decisions Decisions consultants: http://www.beaverton.k12.or.us/home/departments/community-involvement/the-strategic-planning-process/the-

decisions-decisions-team/ 43 Bullet Points Taken Verbatim From: “Background.” Beaverton School District.

http://www.beaverton.k12.or.us/home/departments/community-involvement/the-strategic-planning-process/background/



The following six sections are included in the planning process. Taking Stock: We start by looking inside the District to understand what we do well

and where we must do better. We look carefully at these matters with student achievement in mind.

Engaging the Community: We then look out into the community to understand what people need and want from the District. We also try to recognize what trends will be coming our way and how they will affect our work.

Defining Direction: At the core of the plan, this set of decisions define where we want to go as a District and as a community. This includes identifying the specific results we are working together to achieve.

Creating the Plan: We put our best ideas together into a plan to make sure we stay on course over the next five years. This plan is the final result of many critical decisions along the way.

Moving From Plan to Action: A plan is important, but action makes things happen. This step translates the plan into the work that everyone within the District does every day to advance student achievement.

Assessing the Work: This step brings the effort back to the beginning by comparing what we wanted to accomplish and what we did accomplish. We will measure both the quality of our results and the effectiveness of our actions.45

The Engaging the Community component of the planning process includes two sections: The Discovery Stage and the Priorities Stage. During the Discovery Stage, which was conducted during the fall of 2008, group interviews, listening sessions, individual interviews, and an online survey were used to solicit observations from the community. Following up on this, during the Priority Setting Stage, community forums and an additional online survey were used to allow the community to provide input on the prioritization of the ideas collected during the first phase of the Engaging the Community effort.46 The community forums were held at schools within the district from 6-9pm on four weeknights in February.47 A Vision and Planning Council was formed to “to provide in-depth analysis and input to assist the School Board as it sets the direction for the District.”48 This 46-person committee was selected through an application process, and included representatives from a variety of community groups, such as district employees, parents, and business and community members. Chaired by the mayor of Beaverton and a school district parent, this committee began meeting following the Engaging the Community phase of the planning process.49 The role of the council was to:

44 “Shaping District Excellence: Strategic Planning Update.” Op. cit. 45 Bullet Points Taken Verbatim From: Ibid. 46 Ibid. 47 Uno, W. “Beaverton Schools Set Four Regional Planning Forums.” OregonLive.

http://www.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/index.ssf/2009/01/beaverton_schools_set_four_reg.html 48 “Summary of Vision & Planning Council Discussion.” Beaverton School District Board.

http://www.beaverton.k12.or.us/pdf/ci/ci_Summary%20of%20VP%20Council%20Discussion%20v2.pdf p. 1 49 Ibid.



Review preliminary results from various sources received during the major outreach phase

Highlight the most important and relevant issues and data

Develop key questions/options for the Board to consider If appropriate, propose sequencing of questions, suggested priorities and issues

that require additional consideration Review the preliminary work of the Board and input from Community Forums to

determine strengths and areas of concern Encourage participation among colleagues, neighbors Support outreach efforts50

Prior to the Vision and Planning Council’s first meeting in January 2009, the council members were given background materials. The goals of the first meeting were to synthesize the information from the Community Engagement Phase, clarify value statements, and identify preliminary choices facing the school board. During this discussion, the council identified several themes prevalent in the discussions and the information gathered during the Engaging the Community efforts. These topics included:

Creating a unified district Having high expectations and providing a rigorous education

Ensuring quality principals, teachers, and support staff

Appreciating the growing diversity Increasing connections with parents and community

Balancing flexible curriculum with standards Students assuming more responsibility for learning, including identifying their own

learning needs Equity

Making decisions that are data based, research based, and measurable51 As discussed in Section I, the use of goals and measurements that are concrete, and even quantitative if possible, is important to ensuring accountability for the results of the strategic plan. Beaverton School District accomplishes this by using a Strategic Plan Balanced Scorecard, a chart that plots annual targets for each goal and records the actual results. To demonstrate the format, a segment of this scorecard is reproduced below. This segment is for the goal of maintaining a “high quality empowered staff,” for which the district has identified four specific measures. For each measure, the scorecard shows the baseline measure for 2009-2010, the target for each subsequent year, and the actual result for each year. 50 Bullet Points Taken Verbatim From: Ibid., p. 9 51 Ibid.



Figure 3.3: Beaverton Strategic Plan Balanced Scorecard

Baseline 2009-10

Target 2010-

11

Result 2010-

11

Target 2011-

12

Result 2011-

12

Target 2012-

13

Target 2013-

14

Target 2014-

15 High Quality Empowered Staff % of teachers remaining employed with the District for five or more years

83.7% 86% 86% 88% 90% 92% 94%

% of teachers reporting opportunities to collaborate with colleagues resulting in improved professional practices and higher student achievement

NA NA 59% 62% 65% 68% 72%

% of educators reporting they work in a safe, inclusive, and respectful climate

NA NA 92% 93% 95% 95% 95%

Staff diversity mirrors District student diversity (Percentage point gap between staff and students of color)

31.5% 29.9% 32.9% 28.4% 27.0% 25.7% 24.4%

Source: Beaverton School District52 A few things are notable about the Beaverton scorecard. First, the scorecard uses color coding to track results. Results that do not hit the target are recorded in red, and those that do are recorded in green. Results that show improvement but fall short of the target are recorded in yellow (not shown in this segment). More importantly, the targets for each year are scaled appropriately. Some are increased gradually each year (e.g., “teachers remaining employed”), but where a certain level of sufficiency is achieved, the target is stabilized. Thus, once the percentage of teachers reporting that they work in a “safe, inclusive, and respectful climate” hits 95 percent, the target is maintained at that level for subsequent years, because it may not be reasonable to expect the achievement of a perfect “100 percent” on this or any measure. Finally, it should be noted that some of the metrics have no baseline measure or target for the first year, because these are new metrics devised as part of the strategic plan. The “results” for these metrics in 2010-2011 are in fact the first measurement of these indicators and provide a baseline for subsequent targets. This shows that the improvement of data collection efforts, including the identification of new indicators, can itself be an important part of the strategic planning process.

52 “Strategic Plan Balanced Scorecard 1/5/2012.” Beaverton School District.

http://www.beaverton.k12.or.us/pdf/ci/ci_BalancedScorecard%20Balanced%20Scorecard.pdf



DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT – PHOENIX, ARIZONA The Deer Valley Unified School District has recently developed a strategic plan. The four priority areas of the strategic plan are student learning, employee development, stakeholder satisfaction, and organizational effectiveness and efficiency.53 Three teams were developed to guide the strategic planning process. The teams focus respectively on Data; Mission, Vision, and Core Values; and Key Priorities and Key Results. The teams are composed of students, teachers, principals, and assistant principals from specific schools, as well as representatives from the following departments: Research and Data Analysis; Public Relations; Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment; Community Education; Teaching and Learning; Human Resources; Fiscal Services; and Improvement Systems.54 To guide the implementation of the planning process, the district developed the following timeline, or “process map.” The map sets out the progressive stages of the planning process and identifies the stakeholders with the primary responsibility for each stage. Again, this process reflects the general pattern already identified of progressive refinement over the course of an entire year, with regular input and consultation between the various constituencies of the district.

Figure 3.4: Deer Valley Strategic Plan Process Map

DATES STAKEHOLDER DESCRIPTION

Planning Stage August 17th Steering Committee Initial planning of the Strategic Plan process

August 20-22nd Steering Committee Create and refine Process map

August 27th Steering Committee Process Map shared with Executive Cabinet- Revision shared September 4th

August 27th Student Think Tank

September 5th Assoc. Superintendent, Improvement Systems K-12 Administrators

September 11th Governing Board Process Map submitted to Governing Board

End of September Public Relations Communication Video with Superintendent

Website Postings Communication with stakeholders

Data Analysis

September Director, Research and Data Analysis Determine customer requirements/ priorities Survey data analysis

October 31st Steering Committee Organizational profile completed

2011-2012 Steering Committee Analysis of the input from 9 Think Tanks

53 “Deer Valley Unified School District Strategic Plan.” Deer Valley Unified School District.

http://dvusd.org/index.php/strategic-plan 54 “Team Members 2012-2013.” Deer Valley Unified School District.

http://www.dvusd.org/docs/strategicPlan/SP_Members.pdf



DATES STAKEHOLDER DESCRIPTION

Gather Data to Craft Mission, Vision, and Core Values

Early November Executive Cabinet

Share organizational profiles & process Open space

Diverse stakeholder participation SWOT analysis

Challenges & Strengths Information leads to the realignment and creation of the Mission, Vision, and

Core Values

November 30th Executive Cabinet Craft and verify Mission, Vision, and Core Values Check/Balance for Executive Cabinet

December/ January District Leadership

Loop Out: Mission, Vision, Core Values, Governing Board, Live with Dr. V. [Superintendent], K-12 Administrators, K-12 Departments, Post-Secondary

connections, PTO/PTA, Communication Council, Secretary meetings, Interfaith, CIT members, STUGO

Gather Data to Craft Key Priorities and Key Results

February 19th - 20th Steering Committee and Executive Cabinet

Strategic Planning Evening Forums to identify: Key priorities, key results, all stakeholders

February 25-28th Executive Cabinet Analysis of input compiled from the Strategic Planning Evening Forums Check/Balance for Executive Cabinet

March District Leadership

Loop Out: Mission, Vision, Core Values, Governing Board, Live with Dr. V. [Superintendent], K-12 Administrators, K-12 Departments, Post-Secondary

connections, PTO/PTA, Communication Council, Secretary meetings, Interfaith, CIT members, STUGO

Develop Goals, Measures, and Targets

March Executive Cabinet and District Leadership Develop the goals, measures, and targets

March Superintendent;

Director, Research and Data Analysis

Scorecard Dashboard

March Steering Committee Broadcast: Think Tank March Steering Committee Analyze Trends from the feedback April Principals Region Discussions

Communication and Approval April Public Relations Develop the Communications Plan

Develop Goals, Measures, and Targets April/ May Executive Cabinet Finalize Strategic Plan

Communication and Approval May 14th Steering Committee Submit to Governing Board May 28th Governing Board Approval

May Public Relations Deployment of the Communication Plan All Stakeholders: Implementation of the 5 Year Strategic Plan

Source: Deer Valley Unified School District55 During the early stages of the planning, key stakeholder groups were engaged through nine “Think Tanks” that were held to gather ideas students, teachers, administrators, community

55 “Strategic Process Map 2012/2013.” Deer Valley Unified School District.

http://www.dvusd.org/docs/strategicPlan/Process_Map_100312.pdf



members, parents, board members and district employees. In addition, stakeholders including staff members, parents, students, community members, higher education representatives, business partners, and graduates of the district completed a survey, the results of which helped to shape the strategic planning process. Graduates of district schools were additionally polled about what components of the school district could be strengthened to better prepare students for college and the workforce, and local higher education administrators were asked to identify the skills that district students need to strengthen to better perform in post-secondary education.56 The documents provided online to facilitate communication about the strategic planning process include student achievement results from the 2007-2008 to 2011-2012 school years, the results of the stakeholder survey, and a list of the key strategic plan participants.57 The results of the stakeholder survey, which was completed by 3,701 people, found that “21st Century Skills” and “Quality Employees” were the top two priorities overall when each of the stakeholder groups were analyzed. The topics that were the least likely to be chosen as top priorities were “Resource Alignment” and “Parent and Community Engagement.”58 Deer Valley also surveyed stakeholders to gather opinions about proposed versions of the district’s vision and mission statements.59 FORSYTH COUNTY SCHOOLS – CUMMING, GEORGIA In 2008, Forsyth County Schools (FCS) developed a strategic plan for the 2009-2012 school years. During the 2012-2013 school year, the strategic plan for the 2013-2016 school years is being developed. Below, we present information from both processes, including the overall goals of the strategic planning process, how strategic planning works in the Forsyth County Schools, and the timeline for the process.60 As with the other districts discussed in this report, FCS adopted a timeline for its strategic planning process, which is shown in the figure below. Comparably to other districts, the FCS process spans approximately one year and moves through progressive stages of refinement. Starting with a stage of “planning to plan,” which focuses on the broad, guiding principles of the vision and mission statements, the process moves to the development of specific outcomes and of the necessary actions to implement each outcome. It culminates in the creation of a draft plan for approval by the board of education. Along the way, stakeholder input is gathered through focus groups and feedback from relevant constituencies.

56 “Strategic Survey Results Released.” Deer Valley Unified School District. http://www.dvusd.org/index.php/strategic-

plan/new-strategic-plan-2013 57 Ibid. 58 “Stakeholder Survey Results.” Deer Valley Unified School District.

http://www.dvusd.org/docs/strategicPlan/StakeholderSurveyResults_final.pdf 59 Bullet Points Taken Verbatim From: “DVUSD Vision Statement.” Deer Valley Unified School District.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8XRCVHB 60 “Public Information and Communications.” Op. cit.



Figure 3.5: Forsyth County Schools Strategic Plan Timeline DATES OBJECTIVES

May 14, 2012 Plan to Plan (Strategic Plan Committee: BOE and Cabinet) Reassessed vision, mission and beliefs Began to develop desired outcomes

May – August

Design and Conduct Environmental Scan Utilized an “idea card” process at the Leadership Retreat Analyze existing data (District Accreditation, Climate Surveys,

GAPSS, Vision for Public Education, etc.) and review anticipated future trends (demographics, tax digest, etc.)

Share data with Strategic Plan Committee Set-up opportunities for online input Hold joint LSC meeting Conduct focus groups (principals, assistant principals, students, staff,

parents and community/business) Share input with Strategic Plan Committee

October Develop Desired Outcomes/Impacts and Key Success Indicators (Strategic Plan Committee)

October - November Develop Strategies and Related Actions for Each Desired Outcome (Sub-groups of Strategic Plan Committee)

November – December Compile Draft Plan Obtain feedback

December – January Review Feedback and Finalize Plan January 2013 BOE Approves 2013-16 Strategic Plan

February Communicate New Plan and Begin Work on Realigning the R4 Data Dashboard to New Goals, Strategies and Key Actions

Source: Forsyth County Schools61 In order to solicit information from key stakeholders, FCS conducted a series of surveys and focus groups for groups such as students, staff members without children in FCS, staff members with children in FCS, parents, and business and community representatives. Some of the questions posed in the surveys and focus groups included the following:

If you were talking to someone about FCS, what would you tell them are the key strengths of the schools, those things that stand-out in supporting student success?

As FCS plans for the future, what should the district maintain to support student success (i.e. programs/initiatives)?

In what areas do you believe FCS needs to improve to better support student success?

As FCS plans for the next three years, the areas of instruction, personnel, technology, facilities, and funding have been identified as key priorities. What additional areas, if any, should be a key priority?

What else do you want us to consider in the 2013-16 Strategic Plan?62

61 “Strategic Plan Timeline.” Forsyth County Schools.

www.forsyth.k12.ga.us/cms/lib3/GA01000373/Centricity/Domain/28/2013-16%20Strategic%20Plan%20Timeline.pptx



As Forsyth County Schools recently completed a strategic plan in 2008, the lessons learned from that strategic planning process were discussed at the initial planning meeting in 2012 for the 2013-2016 strategic plan. Some of the key lessons learned included the following:

Involvement: Reflecting one of the themes of many of the strategic planning processes discussed in this report, FCS noted with approval the achievement of “participation from diverse stakeholder[s],” which led to “cooperation” and a feeling of “ownership” of the plan.

Goals: Again reflecting a common theme in district strategic planning, FCS found that a strength of prior strategic plans had been setting goals that were ambitious (the goals were “visionary” and “set high expectations”) but were also concrete (“goals were specific”), and even quantitative (goals were “measurable based on data”).

Communication and Process: As noted in Section II, the literature identifies communication as a major challenge of district strategic planning. FCS addressed this challenge in its past strategic planning processes through “regular updates on progress” with “incremental measurable checkpoints” that could give a sense of how well implementation was working.

Usefulness: Finally, FCS evaluated the usefulness of strategic planning, which is an important consideration; planning should not become an end in itself. The district found that past planning had been useful, not only to “provide focus” and a “guideline” for district operations, but for, e.g., providing “continuity during transitions” and improving communications with the community.63

LINCOLN PUBLIC SCHOOLS – LINCOLN, NEBRASKA The Lincoln Public Schools (LPS) undertook the process of developing a strategic plan in 2011, which culminated in a four-pronged plan that addresses student learning, community relations, human resources, and facilities and operations.64 The planning process began with a series of 17 strategic planning sessions over the first three months of 2011, involving over 400 participants representing “a broad variety of stakeholder and school groups.”65 After gathering 494 ideas from these forums,66 the superintendent formed a 26-member strategic planning committee composed of community members and stakeholders and facilitated by an education professor from the University of Nebraska.67

62 “Students Currently Enrolled in FCS: Online Input for the 2013-2016 Strategic Plan.” Forsyth County Schools.

www.forsyth.k12.ga.us/cms/lib3/GA01000373/Centricity/Domain/28/Online%20Form%20Student%20feedback%20for%20SP.doc

63 “Summary of Input from May 14th Planning Meeting.” Forsyth County Schools. www.forsyth.k12.ga.us/cms/lib3/GA01000373/Centricity/Domain/28/feedback%20from%20may%20cabinet%20and%20boe%20mtg.docx

64 “Strategic Plan for Lincoln Public Schools: Action Steps.” Lincoln Public Schools. http://docshare2.lps.org/docushare/dsweb/View/Collection-169173

65 “Strategic Planning Committee.” Lincoln Public Schools. http://www.lps.org/about/superintendent/stratplan.html 66 “Focus Fours – Strategic Planning Forums.” Lincoln Public Schools.

http://docshare2.lps.org/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-873457/Focus%20Fours%20strat%20plan%20team.pdf

67 “Strategic Planning Committee.” Lincoln Public Schools. Op. cit.



The committee met in four “intensive” sessions over two weekends in the spring of 2011. The sessions included presentations from district staff about the issues facing the district, including demographics, student achievement, finances, human resources, and public opinion. Following these presentations, the committee worked to draw up lists of the strengths, limitations, opportunities, and threats facing the district (often known as a “SWOT” analysis).68 Examples of these items are shown in the figure below.

Figure 3.6: Example Results of LPS SWOT Analysis

Strengths Great buildings and infrastructure High teacher quality Strong financial support

Limitations Gap between schools and community/social services (e.g., mental health) Adequate parental involvement Lack of diversity in the workforce

Opportunities Improving/expanding distance learning, virtual classrooms, eLearning Nurture student diversity to become future staff diversity Strong cooperation with University of Nebraska

Threats Erosion of families Continuation of reduced funding Teacher morale - overworked

Source: Lincoln Public Schools69

Finally, the committee drafted a set of strategic goals or “strategic directions.” Working in five sub-groups, the committee came up with an initial set of 24 goals. Where the sub-groups produced goals that were “similar in nature,” these were consolidated, leading to 12 distinct goals. The committee then used a cumulative voting system to identify the highest priority goals among these 12. Each member was given six votes to apply as he or she saw fit to one or more of the goals; the total votes received by each goal gave the school system of how important the committee felt any given goal was. For instance, the call for a “comprehensive, K-12 information science and technology curriculum” received the most votes (28), while a goal to “ensure that all students are academically ‘qualified’ before advancing to the next grade level” ranked eighth with only eight votes.70 The goals identified by the committee were submitted to the board of education as recommendations, with the board retaining the prerogative to recast or reprioritize the goals as it saw fit. The committee did recommend that the district select “a workable

68 “A Summary of the LPS Strategic Planning Meetings.” Lincoln Public Schools.

http://docshare2.lps.org/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-882129/LPS%20Strategic%20Plan%20Report%202011-2.pdf

69 See “Lincoln Public Schools Strategic Planning 1” and “Strategic Planning – Opportunities 2”. Lincoln Public Schools. http://www.lps.org/about/superintendent/stratplan.html

70 “A Summary of the LPS Strategic Planning Meetings.” Lincoln Public Schools. Op. cit.



number of goals,” i.e., three to four, and set the remainder aside to be revisited after the district has addressed the highest priority needs.71 In the end, the board and superintendent exercised this prerogative. Out of the four final strategic goals, the goal to improve student learning will be organized around an initial objective to increase the graduation rate by three percentage points by 2016.72 When the strategic planning committee prioritized the 12 proposed goals, however, the proposed goal to improve the graduation rate received only two votes out of the 144 total votes cast, placing it ninth out of 12 in the committee’s priorities. On the other hand, the goal that the committee ranked second, with 25 votes, was “community engagement,” 73 which is reflected in one of the four final goals in the LPS strategic plan, which is to improve engagement with the public and key stakeholders.74 This demonstrates how a school district can both allow community input to shape its strategic objectives and assert its own sense of what the priorities are for the district’s strategic direction. After submitting these goals to the board and receiving the board’s “fine-tuning” of the strategic goals, the district formed “strategic writing committees,” composed of community members, district staff, and board members, to develop action plans for each goal. This occurred in the summer and fall of 2011.75 By the end of that year, a final version of the strategic plan was ready for the board’s final approval.76 Each action plan breaks the strategic goal down into individual steps, with each plan composed of between four and 15 steps. For each “action step,” key variables are identified, including: who is responsible (i.e., personnel); what is the timeline for completion; what resources are available and what resources are needed; what is the estimated cost; and what communications are necessary. A sample “action step” is reproduced below. It is drawn from the “student learning” strategic goal, which is to increase the graduation rate.

71 “Lincoln Public Schools Strategic Planning.” Lincoln Public Schools. p. 8.

http://docshare2.lps.org/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-882128/Lincoln%20Public%20Schools%20Strategic%20Plan%20Power%20Point.pdf

72 “LPS Action Plan for Increasing the Graduation Rate.” Lincoln Public Schools. http://docshare2.lps.org/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-992819/1%20Learning.pdf

73 “A Summary of the LPS Strategic Planning Meetings.” Lincoln Public Schools. Op. cit. 74 “LPS Action Plan for Public Engagement.” Lincoln Public Schools.

http://docshare2.lps.org/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-992820/2%20Public%20engagement.pdf 75 Steven Joel. “Grateful to Live in Lincoln.” Lincoln Public Schools. July 20, 2011.

http://wp.lps.org/sjoel/blog/2011/07/20/grateful-to-live-in-lincoln/ 76 “Summary of November 30, 2011 Meeting.” Lincoln Public Schools. December 1, 2011.

http://wp.lps.org/tac/blog/2011/12/01/33/



Figure 3.7: Example Action Step from LPS Strategic Plan

Action Step What will be done?

Responsibilities Who will do it?

Timeline By when?

Resources A. Resources available B. Resources needed

Estimated Cost A. What is the cost to use available resources? B. What is the cost for needed resources?

Communications Plan Who needs to know? How will you inform them? How often?

Step 1.3: Develop early warning system [EWS] for high school students, based on attendance, behavior, and credit earned

Director of Evaluation and Assessment; Coordinator of High School Graduation Initiative Grant

August 2013

A. Student Information System, researchers in [Educational Service Unit] B. Dedicated time by Computing Services and researchers in the [Educational Service Unit]

A. Dedicated time B. Dedicated time

EWS communicated to high school principals, associate principals, counselors, teachers, students, and parents, through council meetings, staff meetings, district web site and publications, and in individual conferences with students and their families

Source: Lincoln Public Schools77

77 “LPS Action Plan for Increasing the Graduation Rate.” Lincoln Public Schools. Op. cit.



PROJECT EVALUATION FORM Hanover Research is committed to providing a work product that meets or exceeds member expectations. In keeping with that goal, we would like to hear your opinions regarding our reports. Feedback is critically important and serves as the strongest mechanism by which we tailor our research to your organization. When you have had a chance to evaluate this report, please take a moment to fill out the following questionnaire. http://www.hanoverresearch.com/evaluation/index.php

CAVEAT The publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this brief. The publisher and authors make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this brief and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose. There are no warranties which extend beyond the descriptions contained in this paragraph. No warranty may be created or extended by representatives of Hanover Research or its marketing materials. The accuracy and completeness of the information provided herein and the opinions stated herein are not guaranteed or warranted to produce any particular results, and the advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for every member. Neither the publisher nor the authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Moreover, Hanover Research is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. Members requiring such services are advised to consult an appropriate professional.

http://www.hanoverresearch.com/evaluation/index.php



1750 H Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20006

P 202.756.2971 F 866.808.6585 www.hanoverresearch.com