strategic improvement planning report...strategic improvement planning report – 5/04/2015 page 5...

Strategic Improvement Planning Report

May 4, 2015

Presented by

Joseph C. Barrow, Jr., Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools

& Terry O. Oatts, Ed.D.

Assistant Superintendent of Student Achievement

Fayette County Schools Strategic Improvement Planning Report – 5/04/2015

May 4, 2015

Table of Contents:

Strategic Improvement Planning Executive Summary 3

Proposed Mission, Vision & Beliefs 7

Proposed Strategic Goal Areas & Performance Objectives 8

Strategy Visual & Statement 9

Board of Education Ad Hoc Committee 10

Planning Team Members 10

Action Team Members 11

Community Engagement Report: Synthesis of Input 13

SWOT Analysis 16


May 4, 2015

Strategic Improvement Planning Executive Summary

On August 4, 2014, the Board of Education of the Fayette County Board of Education voted unanimously to use a process developed by the Georgia School Boards Association (GSBA) and Georgia Leadership Institute for School Improvement (GLISI) to develop an updated strategic improvement plan for the school district. This comprehensive process engaged the community and all stakeholder groups to create universal ownership and support for district and school improvement. Highlights of the process include:

A comprehensive community engagement component to allow stakeholders to have a voice in the strategic improvement planning process

A diverse planning team that represented stakeholder groups to develop the plan

A facilitated planning process that assisted the planning and action teams in analyzing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the school district and developing/defining the mission, vision, beliefs, goal areas and elements of the strategic improvement plan

A facilitated process to work with experts within the district and community on developing initiatives and action steps to implement the plan

Continuous Improvement

Model


May 4, 2015

The strategic improvement planning process follows a continuous improvement cycle designed around the five questions listed in the visual above. This process begins with a community engagement session with stakeholders. The entire process will take 8-12 months to complete and is divided into the following phases. Phase I Community Engagement: To assist the Strategic Planning Team with their work, input from a diverse cross-section of our school communities was solicited and gathered at a formal community engagement forum held at the LaFayette Educational Center in the D Building. The session was conducted on October 16, 2014. The following provides detailed information on the community engagement forum that occurred in the fall of 2014.

Community Engagement Forum – October 14, 2014 - 40 participants representing the school district, students, parents, and community members

Online Survey – October 21- November 3, 2014 – 3 completed surveys

Fayette Visioning Project – Our community engagement forum included representation from our county’s Fayette Visioning Project which is a collaboration between the private and public sectors on improving our county’s economic competitiveness and viability

Fayette County Chamber of Commerce – our local chamber was intricately involved in our school district’s strategic planning process in the person of Chamber President Virginia Gibbs and her successor, Carlotta Ungaro

Goals:

To be transparent and inclusive To honor the input citizens gave in the strategic planning process and in the community

engagement forums conducted by Superintendent of Schools Dr. Joseph Barrow To inform citizens on the strategic planning process To build trust and relationships with stakeholder groups To include voices of Fayette's various stakeholder groups in the development of the

strategic plan To demonstrate the process is proactive rather than reactive To communicate and demonstrate to all stakeholder groups that the success of the public

school system is a shared responsibility between the district, parents, students, and the community

Planning Team: In December 2014 a group of approximately 30 people representing stakeholder groups from the school board, central office, schools, parents, students, business and other community representatives were assembled to answer the questions: “Who are we”, “Where are we now”, and “Where do we want to go”. Specific outcomes include a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis, a review of beliefs, mission and vision for the district, and developing strategic goal areas and priorities for the strategic improvement plan. Action Teams: In early January 2015 five smaller teams consisting of 12-15 stakeholders per team were assembled to answer the question “How will we know when we have arrived”. The action


May 4, 2015

teams looked at each proposed strategic goal area and identified the performance objectives, and a draft of measures and targets to answer this question. Additionally, the action teams began to look at the initiatives and action steps that might be needed to answer the fourth question of the GSBA Strategic Improvement Planning Process, “How do we plan to get there”. Action team members reviewed the alignment of goal areas and performance objectives with the following

AdvancED Quality Assurance Review Standards (SACS standards) Required Action Report from the 2013 AdvancED Report

A Vision for Public Education in Georgia - Recommendations

Title I Guidelines

Fayette Visioning Project

The Fayette Visioning Project began in 2013. The Fayette Visioning Project membership includes representation from Fayette County Schools most notably our Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Joseph C. Barrow, Jr. Action Team Report to Planning Team: In April, 2015 the Action Team Goal Area Leaders and the Senior Leadership Team for the District began a more focused look at initiatives and action steps that might be needed to answer the fourth question of the GSBA Strategic Improvement Planning Process, “How do we plan to get there”. Also, the Action Team delivered a report of their work back to the Planning Team and Community Engagement Forum on April 16, 2015. The planning team and community engagement forum reviewed the action team’s work, discussed priorities, implications and were given a 14-day window within which to offer recommendations for additions or changes to the strategic plan. Phase II Action Team Report to the Board of Education: In May 2015 representatives from the Action Team, specifically Dr. Barrow and Dr. Oatts, presented a report of the strategic improvement plan to the board. The board will review the report, offer input and consider approval of the plan for 2015-2020. Board and Staff: Once the board has adopted the work of the Planning and Action Teams, specific initiatives, and action steps necessary to execute the plan will be investigated and/or implemented as necessary. These initiatives will be investigated and/or implemented at the board, district, school (School Improvement Plans) and community levels. A Theory of Change to address the need to Bridge the Gap between Under-Performance and Excellence through Growth and Achievement will be drafted to provide a strategic roadmap for parents, staff, and community members.

Phase III


May 4, 2015

Alignment: The plan’s initiatives and action steps will be aligned to the districts and school budgets. Additionally, school improvement plans and other system action plans will be aligned with the new strategic improvement plan. Phase IV Execution, Monitoring and Reporting: After alignment of the plan, district and school staff in conjunction with the board will execute, monitor, and report on the plan as well as ensure an ongoing process to review and update the plan as needed. Fayette County Schools’ Commitment to Ongoing Process: Action Team performance measures and suggested initiatives/action steps have been documented for follow-up. These suggested initiatives/action steps are not inclusive of school-based initiatives that may be developed to support and meet specific established goals. In keeping with the school district’s commitment to continuous improvement, there will be a continuous focus on systemic processes and goals to improve the district, but differentiated models are encouraged at the local school levels. School-based governance and leadership teams will be in place to foster the development of appropriate action items in support of school-based initiatives to support and meet specific established goals, performance measures and strategic priorities.

Strategic plan mid-year and summary updates will be provided to the Board by Action Team Leaders in December 2015 and May 2016. The Superintendent in consultation with the Assistant Superintendent of Student Achievement will monitor progress on the strategic goals by way of quarterly meetings with the identified goal area leaders. District-based LKES Principal Evaluators will review the school-based status of the strategic goals through the TLE evaluation process. The eBOARD Strategic Plan software provides a Balanced Scorecard that reflects the Strategic Plan goals and progress.

eBOARD Strategic Plan Software: One of the most important aspects of the Strategic Improvement Planning Process is the ability of the school district to use GSBA’s eBOARD Strategic Plan Software to assist with the execution, monitoring, and reporting of the plan. GSBA’s eBOARD Strategic Plan Module makes the process easy for district staff and the school board. Strategic Plan items can be easily updated by staff allowing users to filter the plan by staff, department, status, priority, date, etc. As the plan is updated, results are reported through the Strategic Dashboard; Balanced Scorecard; and Goal Alignment report. eBOARD helps to keep everyone informed and provides real-time status updates of the plan in a transparent fashion.


May 4, 2015

Proposed Mission, Vision & Beliefs (Pending Review by Board)

Mission

Vision

Motto

Based on our core beliefs, we commit to:

Proposed Strategic Goal Areas and Performance Objectives Goal Area I: Student Engagement and Achievement

Increase pathway completion and graduation rates across all subgroups

Increase equity and access for all students

Increase student mastery of state standards

Goal Area II: Organizational and Operational Effectiveness

Ensure a safe and supportive learning environment

Increase efficient use of resources, processes and management structures

Improve organizational and governance structures


May 4, 2015

Goal Area III: Stakeholder, Community and Family Engagement

Improve effective engagement with stakeholders and community

Expand educational and career development partnerships

Improve clarity and effectiveness of internal and external communications

Goal Area IV: Professional Growth and Human Resources

Secure excellent staff

Develop highly effective staff

Create a system-wide succession plan for key positions Goal Area V: Digital Literacy and Integration (pending)*

Allocate adequate financial and material resources commensurate with digital priorities

Identify and define essential elements of digital literacy for faculty, staff, students and parents

Afford students digital access to curricular content and resources *On a 2-1 basis, Planning Team members expressed a preference for adding Digital Literacy as a fifth goal area.


May 4, 2015


May 4, 2015

The Fayette County Schools’ District Strategy Map

Figure 1


May 4, 2015

Board of Education Marion Key, Chair Dan Colwell, Vice-Chair Leonard Presberg Barry Marchman, Ph.D. Diane Basham Planning Team Members Audrey Toney Becky Ryckeley, Ph.D. Caroline Schmitt Connie Baldwin Erin Roberson Joseph Barrow, Ed.D. Kate Matthews Kim Herron Kristin Berryman Lakisha Bonner Linda Beaubien Mark Henderson Mary Anne Charron, GLISI Matthew Jackson Patricia Morgan Patty Heitmuller, GLISI Portia Rhodes, Ed.D. Rae Presley-King Randy Hudson Rosie Gwin Sam Sweat Terry Oatts, Ed.D. Tom Gray Tony Arasi, GSBA Tonya Curry Peggy Thomas Al Mead


May 4, 2015

Action Team Members Action Team Members Student Engagement and Achievement Organizational and Operational Effectiveness Terry Oatts, Ed.D. Joseph C. Barrow, Jr. Ed.D. Becky Ryckeley, Ph.D. Sam Sweat Portia Rhodes, Ed.D. Tom Gray Caroline Schmitt Kristin Berryman Mark Henderson Diane Basham Lisa Collins Dan Colwell Kris Floyd Patricia Morgan

Action Team Members Action Team Members Stakeholder, Community & Family Engagement Professional Growth & HR Virginia Gibbs Rae Presley-King Randy Hudson Kim Herron Julie Turner Linda Beaubien Dan Lane, Ph.D. Clarice Howard Leonard Presberg Marion Key Al Mead

Action Team Members

Digital Literacy and Integration Sharon Lunceford Kate Matthews Matthew Jackson Angie Foerster Nancy Blair


May 4, 2015

Community Engagement Initiative Community Meeting – October 16, 2014 Online Survey – October 21 – November 3, 2014 Prepared by: Laura D. Reilly, Georgia School Boards Association To assist the Strategic Planning Team with their work, Fayette County Schools engaged Its community in a process to gauge the thoughts, feelings and perceptions that stakeholders hold regarding the district – before the plan was developed. The engagement initiative, designed and implemented by the Georgia School Boards Association, included a community meeting and an online survey. A genuine effort was made to make the process as inclusive and transparent as possible. Participants of the community engagement initiative responded to the following questions: 1. To become the best school district in the country, what should Fayette County Schools prioritize? (e.g. what should be prioritized and what should not be prioritized) 2. When you think about Fayette County Schools' approach to teaching, learning and assessment, what do you think are the strengths to build upon, and what are areas in need of improvement? (e.g. teacher and leader quality; curriculum; assessment; technology; college and career readiness) 3. What do you think are the top challenges faced by the school system (system/students/teachers?) 4. How are Fayette County Schools doing in the area of governance, leadership and accountability? (This would include the board of education’s understanding of its roles and responsibilities; fiscal and facilities management; the system being accountable for results; and leadership being demonstrated at the highest levels throughout the system). 5. How would you rate Fayette County Schools’ performance on fostering positive school climate and culture; being responsive to the community; and showing willingness to engage the community and its diversity? The intention of this report is to provide a collection of the best thinking of school and community members regarding the five questions presented. The information gathered is qualitative and seeks to focus attention on those areas that generated the most energy. Members of the strategic planning team will use the input to assist them in developing a plan to move the district forward and one that is reflective of its community.


May 4, 2015

The Format Community Meeting

During September and October 2014, the district worked to recruit participants to attend the community meeting on October 16 at LaFayette Educational Center. About 40 parents, teachers and other community members attended the meeting. Participants heard a presentation on the Georgia School Boards Association (GSBA) strategic planning process and a "State of the District" presentation by Dr. Joseph Barrow, Fayette County Schools’ Superintendent. Volunteer facilitators agreed to lead the discussions, clarify issues, keep each group focused, make sure every person had an opportunity to be heard, and ensure that what was said was properly recorded. Facilitators did not ascribe any individual’s name to comments written in the notes of the small group discussions. GSBA staff transcribed all of the notes. Laura Reilly, a consultant for GSBA, compiled the report by sorting the comments into subject matter groups. Results of the community conversation were synthesized with the results of the online survey. Online Survey An online survey using the same questions offered an additional input opportunity. If they desired to do so, participants could provide additional comments on all questions and on the survey as a whole. The Response About 40 community members, teachers, students and staff participated in the community forum. There were 3 responses to the online survey. The survey responses were combined with the notes from the community meeting. If looking at issues or comments individually, it may appear that very few opinions were shared among groups. However, there was a number of issues mentioned by participants multiple times and in different ways. In other words, leadership quality came up as a priority, a strength, an area that needs improvement, and under the question on school/system climate. Taken separately by question, one might not notice the way this issue comes up in different ways and its importance to participants of the community engagement initiative. Issues Appearing in Multiple Ways The issues that appeared to generate the most interest and were mentioned at least five times across the board include:


May 4, 2015

• Holding high expectations of students – participants think it’s important to hold high expectations, but they also think this should be consistent across student abilities. Low and middle achievers should be held to high expectations just as high achievers should. • A curriculum that provides soft skills – participants want students to have the benefit of instruction on the soft skills required to be successful in the work world. • A balanced curriculum that includes vocational/trade opportunities – comments centered on a perception that some students probably won’t go to college and need a strong program to prepare them for a vocational field. • Making college/career readiness a priority– this was mentioned as needing to be a priority, not a priority (comment seemed to imply that this is not a priority but should be one), a strength, an area needing improvement, and a top challenge for the system, students and the BOE. The BOE reference addresses the perception that the BOE doesn’t advocate its workforce development role. • A curriculum that is more individualized and culturally sensitive – a number of groups mentioned this under different questions – needs to be a priority, needs improvement and a top challenge for teachers. • Developing appropriate assessments – this was mentioned as needing to be a priority, needing improvement, a top challenge for the district and teachers, and as something that affects school climate. • Student engagement – a number of participants feel that addressing students’ lack of motivation and/or engagement should be a priority, needs improvement, and is a top challenge for teachers. • Professional development for teachers – this was mentioned as an area needing improvement, a top challenge for teachers and an area that affects school climate because teachers need to be challenged to embrace change. • Teacher and leader quality – the majority of comments under this issue focused on staff being a priority and strength for the district. • A changing community – changing demographics is an issue cited as a top challenge for the district • Technology – participants felt that technology should be a priority, needs improvement and is a top challenge for teachers. • Need for a strategic plan – comments centered on the need for strategic decision making based on the needs of students. • Need to embrace change – this was mentioned as a need for leadership and teachers.


May 4, 2015

• Funding – a top issue for the district is funding. • Teacher and stakeholder buy-in/engagement – improvement is recognized, but participants still feel this is an area that needs to be focused on and one that will help in building closer connections between the district and staff and the community; and between the schools and parents

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) Analysis

INTERNAL Strengths Weaknesses (Working On)

Highly qualified dedicated staff (+3) Pockets of Excellence not pervasive

Responsive to stakeholders County office turnover

Pockets of Excellence Staff resistance to innovation

High student achievement (+3) Autonomy of building-level administrators

Strong collegial relationships Distorted view of what is typical/normal

Fiscally responsible system Too much time spent on assessing, and not enough time spent

analyzing/responding to results

Tradition of high achievement Professional learning – lack monies

HQ teachers Recognized as a very good system

High parent participation (+1) More diverse/transient

Dedicated and supportive school and

district leaders Tradition of top down decision-making

Up-to-date modern facilities School Board decisions and actions in line with defined roles and response

ESPLOST funds Align curriculum with standards

Balanced budget with reserve Organizational structure (lean)

High access to technology (+1) Not all students have access to higher

level courses

Low student discipline Inequity of monies towards facility


May 4, 2015

improvements

High graduation rate (+1) Not enough seats for classes at high

schools

Instructional support Difficult to get personnel in critical needs

areas

Advance degrees of faculty Continuity of goals or lack there of

Pulling out of financial challenges (+2) Using data to inform instructional decisions

Sense of community Vertical communities (central office/local schools)

Personnel Cohesive School Board (improving)

Open door with parent/stakeholders support

Resistance to change

Rigorous curriculum Superintendent changes

Student Support Services School equity

Professional Learning opportunities Decision-making

~system v. school

~staff v. board

Clean/safe facilities Gifted program service delivery models?

Access to technology Matriculation model v. mastery model

PLC (within schools) Efficiency gaps in operational technology

Knowledgeable, competent and

experienced principals

System is responsive/connected to community needs (e.g. transportation flexibility)

Enthusiasm of district staff ~ goes above

and beyond with participation


May 4, 2015

Fayette County Public Schools

SWOT Analysis

External Opportunities External Threats

Improving fiscal outlook (+2) Political uncertainty (+3)

Film industry Aging population (+1)

Embracing technology Decreasing student population

Strategic partnerships (e.g. Woodruff Foundation; post-secondary organizations;

businesses) (+1)

Superintendent tenure continuity

Superintendent tenure continuity QBE opportunity

QBE opportunity Legislative demands

Leverage population that embraces

education District voting lawsuit

ESEA reauthorization Demographic shift

~aging population

~lower SES (+2)

Strong community support (+1) Inequity of business support

Strong partnerships with businesses, corporations, high tech companies (+1)

Perceived power of parents and advocates

Majority of students have background experiences

Negative and/or Uninformed Media Accounts

Partnerships with colleges and universities

~student-intern positions

Gray Tsunami

~less tax base

Diversity Baby boomer teachers retiring

Pinewood Studios Diverse-transient


May 4, 2015

Parental and stakeholder involvement (+1) Reduced socio-economics

Growing industry and business in the

community Employees live outside of county

Proximity for Ex. Losing young families

Partnership for dual enrollment ESPLOST funds (approval)

Demographics Perception of school quality (diversity)

Strong police and religious community

support State curriculum changes

Baby boomer teachers retiring – train new generation of teachers

TKES/LKES

ESPLOST funds School funding (state)

PTSO/Booster Clubs/School Council Boards

Chamber of Commerce

Educated family/community

strategic improvement planning report...strategic improvement planning report – 5/04/2015 page 5...

Documents