1/13/2015

1

HUB SCHOOL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION FORMATHUB SCHOOL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION FORMATandand

EVALUATION RUBRICEVALUATION RUBRIC

Chignecto-Central Regional School Board

Committee-of-the-WholeDecember 3, 2014

Tonight’s PurposeTonight’s Purpose

• To provide the Board an overview of work todate.

• To show how the Nov. 18 Joint Committeeinfluenced next phase of this work.

• Any Comments and input will be referred tothe Joint Ed Services/Ops Committee.

1/13/2015

2

Document Table of ContentsDocument Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

CCRSB HUB SCHOOL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION FORMAT (details on following slide)

CCRSB HUB SCHOOL PROPOSAL EVALUATION (details on following slide)

AGREEMENT FOR BUILDING USE

APPENDIX A: CCRSB Hub School Proposal Template

APPENDIX B: Mandatory Minimum Requirements Scoring Rubric

APPENDIX C: CCRSB Hub School Proposal Evaluation Scoring Rubric

APPENDIX D: Additional Information

APPENDIX E: DEECD School Review Policy

APPENDIX F: Sample Business Cases form other Canadian Jurisdictions

APPENDIX G: Explanatory Template Notes

GLOSSARY

Proposal Submission Format SummaryProposal Submission Format Summary

CCRSB HUB SCHOOL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION FORMAT

General Submission Requirements

Timelines

Organization of Proposal

Submission Process

Submission Content

1/13/2015

3

Proposal Evaluation SummaryProposal Evaluation SummaryCCRSB HUB SCHOOL PROPOSAL EVALUATION

Evaluation Team (details on following slide)

Evaluation Procedure

Mandatory Minimum Requirements (details on following slide)

Overview

General Components

Operational/Regulatory Components

Educational Components

Financial Components

Hub school Evaluation (details on following slide)

Overview

General Components

Operational/Regulatory Components

Educational Components

Financial Components

Appendices Specific to Submission

Overall Suitability

Scoring Rubric (details on following slide)

Proposed Evaluation TeamProposed Evaluation Team

The Evaluation Team will be comprised of the following:

The Director of Operations

The Director of Finance

The Director of Human Resources

The Director of Education

External Representative

The Manager of Purchasing (Evaluation Team Chair – non-voting member)

1/13/2015

4

Mandatory Minimum RequirementsMandatory Minimum RequirementsSection 1: Overview

i. Each section and sub section requiring information is complete.

ii. The submission has been appropriately signed.

iii. The submission was submitted on time.

Section 2: General Components

i. Assured there is no aspect of the submission that is illegal.

ii. Does not bring the school or board into disrepute, as determined by theboard.

iii. There are sufficient terms and conditions for each of the parties entering intoagreement(s) (including termination).

iv. If there are additional terms and conditions necessary to fulfill the proposal,they have been included.

Section 3: Operational/Regulatory Components

i. Use of space does not violate:

• Education Act and Regulations;

• Any other relevant legislation;

• Ministerial and/or Board Policies;

• Relevant processes and policies respecting the construction and management of schoolfacilities.

ii. The health, safety and security of students, staff, volunteers, community members,public, building and property not at unreasonable risk.

iii. Confirms insurance requirements are met.

Section 4: Educational Components

i. Does not compromise or infringe upon the school’s ability to deliver the public schoolprogram.

ii. Does not interfere with the Board’s strategy for student achievement.

iii. Does not provide competing education services.

iv. Does not clearly and unduly target public schools students for profit.

1/13/2015

5

Section 5: Financial Components

i. Meets Board Planned Cost Savings (including future).

ii. Identifies and Meets Additional Costs.

iii. Meets Future Maintenance Requirements.

iv. Identifies source(s) of funding which are secured prior to finalizingagreement.

v. No increases to capital costs or operational costs for the school boardor province (as compared to planned cost savings) which have notbeen addressed and met through the plan (whether in plan or not).

vi. Does not clearly unduly infringe upon the economic interests of localbusiness enterprises.

vii. Does not create additional unreasonable management responsibilitiesfor the school board.

Hub School EvaluationHub School Evaluation

Section 1: Overview

i. Executive Summary

ii. Background

iii. Submission Guideline Understanding

Section 2: General Components

i. Key Participants

ii. Community Needs/Market Demands

iii. Description of the Proposed Hub School Model

iv. Benefit Analysis

v. Risk Analysis

vi. Impact to Stakeholders

vii. Implementation Strategy and Timeline

viii. Operating Model

1/13/2015

6

Section 3: Operational/Regulatory Components

i. Proposed Hub School Model Conforms to Legislation, Regulations, Policies, Processesand Guidelines

ii. Evidence of Insurance

iii. Health, Safety and Security

iv. Legal Agreements with Occupier/Tenant/Funder(s)

Section 4: Educational Components

i. Public School Program Requirements are Met

ii. Value to Support Student Learning

Section 5: Financial Components

i. School Board Savings and Cost/Benefit Analysis

ii. Funding/Financial Plan

iii. Facility Modification or Construction Costs

iv. Incremental Costs

v. Risk Analysis

vi. Impact on Local Business

vii. Impact on Board Staff

viii. Transitional Matters

ix. Termination Plan

x. Other

Section 6: Appendices Specific to Submission

i. Proponent provides all supporting information, evidence and materials.

Section 7: Overall Suitability

i. Completeness of the proposal and alignment with Guidelines.

1/13/2015

7

Proposed Scoring RubricCCRSB Hub School Submission Evaluation Overview

Scoring RubricDESCRIPTORS

EXCELLENT GOOD

PR

OP

OSA

LM

INIM

UM

FAIR UNSATISFACTORY

Supporting evidence is

credible and substantial

Item is accurately and

thoroughly addressed

Ideas are valid and proven

A significant amount of

evidence is provided

The majority of evidence

is credible and

convincing

Ideas are solid and

probable

Some evidence is provided

The ideas seem authentic

and possible

Information is plausible,

but superficial

Little evidence is provided

Evidence is not supported by

credible sources

Information is inaccurate and

limited in scope

There are no negatives and/orrisks and the positives aresubstantial

Either no negatives and/orrisks are involved or they areclearly and significantlyoutweighed by the positives

There are negatives and/or risksinvolved but also positives ofsimilar weight

Negatives and/or risks related arenot balanced or outweighed bypositives

100 to 90 89 to 80 79 to 70 69 to 0AVAILABLE SCORES

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

0 1 2 3 4 5

NOTIMPORTANT

VERYIMPORTANT

LIMITEDIMPORTANCE IMPORTANT

1/13/2015

8

Time LineTime Line

• July 2014 meeting

• Joint Committee Meetings– September 24/14

– October 21/14 (presentations/feedback)

– November 18/14• Correspondence to Proponents with available space

– December 17/14 (presentations/feedback)

– January 21/15

– February 17/15 (presentations/feedback)

• March 30/15 – Hub School Proposal Submission Deadline

• Opportunity for Proponent Final Presentation to Joint Committee

• Evaluation Committee completes work

• Recommendation provided to Superintendent through to the Board