Policy Governance - Who s in Charge

1. Policy Governance-Who’s in Charge? Lake Washington School District University Place School District

2. 2 Today’s Agenda Understanding Policy Governance (LWSD) Background Description of John Carver’s model Comparison of PG to the traditional model Benefits & Concerns  Implementing Policy Governance (UPSD) Conditions leading to PG: Why change? Preparatory work: Get ready 1st year of implementation: Go Alternatives in time/cost Q & A (Both)

3. 3 Background Fred Haley - Tacoma School Board, circ 1980 Alternative - Micro-management example Who is right?

4. 4 “Life on the board is not juicy and exciting. Rather, it is dull. Board members are more often bored by routine than stimulated by manipulating the levers of power.” Peter Drucker  The Bored Board - 1976

5. 5 “Very competent individuals can come together to form a very incompetent board.” John Carver Boards that Make A Difference

6. 6 Management Steps vs Ownership

7. 7 Dollar Driven vs. Owner Driven

8. 8 Dollar Driven vs. Owner Driven

9. 9 Owner vs. Customer

10. 10 Ends

11. 11 Policy Types Ends: What good, for whom, at what cost or priority Executive Limitations: What the CEO is not permitted to do in day-to-day operations Governance Process: How the board will do its job Board-CEO Relations: How the board and CEO will operate with each other

12. 12 Ends vs. Means Ends are a statement about your customer(s): They describe a result, and They state a priority or cost. If it is not an Ends statement then it must be a Means. (Means are methods to accomplish Ends)

13. 13 Proscribe vs Prescribe Establish what the board is worried about, and Prohibit those activities or events. This is easier than listing all the things you want.

14. 14 Carver’s Key Contributions Governance is a step down from ownership, Not a step up from management. Clear definition of the board’s role vs. CEO’s. The board’s primary work is CEO accountability, Accomplished through monitoring reports. The board’s primary work is ENDS definition, Accomplished through ownership “linkage.” Proscribe CEO duties (not prescribe). Any reasonable interpretation is accepted. CEO is clearly accountable.

15. 15 Benefits Small policy document. Board committee limitations, Committees do board’s work only. Clear owner vs. customer distinction. Board speaks with one voice. Board spends time on the right things, Less micro-mgt. Carver COP keeps board on track.

16. 16 Concerns Language (EL’s, B/CEO Relations, Linkage). Perception board is not running operation. Sustainability (turnover). CEO makes more decisions. CEO Resistance to added accountability. Does not make a bad board good.

17. 17 Comparison

18. 18 Board Meeting Agendas More time on key issues More time discussing owner’s opinions Improved focus on monitoring reports from CEO

19. 19 Monitoring ScheduleSample

20. 20 Monitoring Reports

21. 21 Implementing Policy Governance How we got here What we’ve done What we’ve not done Lessons learned Alternatives in time/money Slide 21 Good morning. My name is Rick Maloney. I’m a board member for University Place School District… And I’m Patti Banks, the University Place superintendent. This morning we will describe our district’s experiences while implementing policy governance, to include shortcomings of which we are aware, and lessons learned along the way. We will also address resources needed to implement this model, and alternatives available. At the conclusion of our presentation board members and administrators of both districts will be available to address your questions.Slide 21 Good morning. My name is Rick Maloney. I’m a board member for University Place School District… And I’m Patti Banks, the University Place superintendent. This morning we will describe our district’s experiences while implementing policy governance, to include shortcomings of which we are aware, and lessons learned along the way. We will also address resources needed to implement this model, and alternatives available. At the conclusion of our presentation board members and administrators of both districts will be available to address your questions.

22. 22 Conditions Preceding PG Leadership roles: ‘Who’s in charge?’ Board concerns Superintendent concerns Superintendent evaluation Slide 22 Prior to 2001 our district had experienced the kinds of issues that policy governance addresses directly: We had the inevitable misunderstandings/frictions between a part-time board and its full-time employees. Roles were at times confused: Who’s in charge? Who’s running the show? Board member concerns included wanting to represent constituents’ interests, not wanting to be a rubber-stamp for the superintendent, and needing to stay up-to-date on ‘what’s going on’ in the district. Superintendent concerns included the board’s tendency to pick-and-choose issues of concern, swerving into and out of micro-management and Monday-morning-quarterbacking some of the day-to-day decisions needed to run the district. One recurring area of concern happened toward the end of each year - at evaluation time - the board used a checklist of desirable superintendent traits and behaviors, focusing on good superintendent habits - - not necessarily on what the district was or wasn’t achieving.Slide 22 Prior to 2001 our district had experienced the kinds of issues that policy governance addresses directly: We had the inevitable misunderstandings/frictions between a part-time board and its full-time employees. Roles were at times confused: Who’s in charge? Who’s running the show? Board member concerns included wanting to represent constituents’ interests, not wanting to be a rubber-stamp for the superintendent, and needing to stay up-to-date on ‘what’s going on’ in the district. Superintendent concerns included the board’s tendency to pick-and-choose issues of concern, swerving into and out of micro-management and Monday-morning-quarterbacking some of the day-to-day decisions needed to run the district. One recurring area of concern happened toward the end of each year - at evaluation time - the board used a checklist of desirable superintendent traits and behaviors, focusing on good superintendent habits - - not necessarily on what the district was or wasn’t achieving.

23. 23 Initial Interest in the Model Spring 2001 - NSBA Bookstore School Board Leadership 2000 Reading Passed book around Shared reactions Discussed possibilities Incubation period Slide 23 In spring of 2001, during the NSBA conference, while browsing in the NSBA bookstore one of our board members came across a copy of “School Board Leadership 2000” by Gene Royer. This book describes the policy governance model as applied to school districts. He read the book on the flight home, taking note of how policy governance seemed to address issues with which we as a board-superintendent team had been wrestling. He shared the book with other board members and the superintendent, and we had several discussions about its potential for addressing these issues. Time passed, and we moved on to other subjects - - the train never stops.Slide 23 In spring of 2001, during the NSBA conference, while browsing in the NSBA bookstore one of our board members came across a copy of “School Board Leadership 2000” by Gene Royer. This book describes the policy governance model as applied to school districts. He read the book on the flight home, taking note of how policy governance seemed to address issues with which we as a board-superintendent team had been wrestling. He shared the book with other board members and the superintendent, and we had several discussions about its potential for addressing these issues. Time passed, and we moved on to other subjects - - the train never stops.

24. 24 Deciding to Use PG Board must understand the model Committee work; Reading; Study Staff must understand the model Year-long board discussion w/staff Deliberations & Decision Public commitment; Resolution Orientation & Training Workshop (AASA/Aspen Group) Slide 24 In the spring of 2002 the board took this up again and decided to appoint a committee to investigate this model in greater depth. We purchased additional information resources, and brought them to the full board for discussion. Before long, we found ourselves referring to policy governance principles during board meetings…for example: “If we were operating under policy governance, we’d deal with it this way…” and over time we became more comfortable with policy governance concepts by comparing them with our normal methods of operating. Gradually we realized that we wanted to make this switch, so in October 2002 all 6 of us attended an AASA-sponsored seminar in policy governance by the Aspen Institute. At this training we met with other districts, some of which were operating under this system. We heard about others’ experiences with this system, obtained sample policies and other references, and discussed how they might be used in our district. Finally, in November 2002 we adopted a resolution to prepare for formal adoption within the next year.Slide 24 In the spring of 2002 the board took this up again and decided to appoint a committee to investigate this model in greater depth. We purchased additional information resources, and brought them to the full board for discussion. Before long, we found ourselves referring to policy governance principles during board meetings…for example: “If we were operating under policy governance, we’d deal with it this way…” and over time we became more comfortable with policy governance concepts by comparing them with our normal methods of operating. Gradually we realized that we wanted to make this switch, so in October 2002 all 6 of us attended an AASA-sponsored seminar in policy governance by the Aspen Institute. At this training we met with other districts, some of which were operating under this system. We heard about others’ experiences with this system, obtained sample policies and other references, and discussed how they might be used in our district. Finally, in November 2002 we adopted a resolution to prepare for formal adoption within the next year.

25. 25 Preparing to Adopt PG 3 Products: Linkage, Policy, Performance Reading: Articles – Books – Pamphlets Policy Development (work-study) Means (GP, B/SR, EL) – using templates Ends (E) – from scratch Annual Agenda – w/ Linkage Meetings Consultant vs. Self-help Slide 25 Under policy governance the 3 most important products of a board are: linkage (with ownership), policy, and assurance of executive (hence district) performance. Of these 3, the one that must be in place before we can make the switch is policy – at least the means policies and one global ends policy. After our training, we read some more, then began using means policies borrowed from another district as templates for developing governance process, board/superintendent relations, and executive limitations policies. We worked on these means policies over a series of weekends, mostly Saturdays, without hiring a consultant. We felt confident in our ability to adapt to the model and had already begun to ‘talk the talk’ in regular board meetings. That decision may not be best for everyone - - it probably extended the amount of time for our implementation. Ends policies began with a single mission statement (policy E-1), from which we created 6 ends policies, all of them developed from scratch so that they authentically reflected values and expectations of our community about the knowledge and skills desired for our students. Only after these preliminary work-study sessions had produced an initial set of policies could we make the switch to the new system of governing via policy.Slide 25 Under policy governance the 3 most important products of a board are: linkage (with ownership), policy, and assurance of executive (hence district) performance. Of these 3, the one that must be in place before we can make the switch is policy – at least the means policies and one global ends policy. After our training, we read some more, then began using means policies borrowed from another district as templates for developing governance process, board/superintendent relations, and executive limitations policies. We worked on these means policies over a series of weekends, mostly Saturdays, without hiring a consultant. We felt confident in our ability to adapt to the model and had already begun to ‘talk the talk’ in regular board meetings. That decision may not be best for everyone - - it probably extended the amount of time for our implementation. Ends policies began with a single mission statement (policy E-1), from which we created 6 ends policies, all of them developed from scratch so that they authentically reflected values and expectations of our community about the knowledge and skills desired for our students. Only after these preliminary work-study sessions had produced an initial set of policies could we make the switch to the new system of governing via policy.

26. 26 ‘Flipping the Switch’ Formal ceremony – public commitment Public/staff informed Change expectations - ‘board business’ Educate: Roles, Procedure Meetings change radically Full year’s agenda - linkage meetings Agenda item: “Is this board business?” Consent agenda for superintendent business Slide 26 The conversion of our model to policy governance needed to be done in public, in order to announce a new way of doing business. Public expectations of board behavior were sometimes at odds with the behavior needed under this model of governance. The public sometimes wants to believe that the board makes all decisions. We reinforce that assumption when they see us voting on even routine operational actions brought to us. We had to make a concerted effort to redefine the meaning of ‘board business’ and more clearly define the leadership role of the superintendent in comparison to the leadership role of the board. Our meetings needed to change radically, so that what was discussed at board meetings were those broad policy issues found in our annual agenda, rather than the inevitably time consuming operational matters (superintendent’s business) crowding so many board meetings. Superintendent’s business is handled (when needed) through the consent agenda.Slide 26 The conversion of our model to policy governance needed to be done in public, in order to announce a new way of doing business. Public expectations of board behavior were sometimes at odds with the behavior needed under this model of governance. The public sometimes wants to believe that the board makes all decisions. We reinforce that assumption when they see us voting on even routine operational actions brought to us. We had to make a concerted effort to redefine the meaning of ‘board business’ and more clearly define the leadership role of the superintendent in comparison to the leadership role of the board. Our meetings needed to change radically, so that what was discussed at board meetings were those broad policy issues found in our annual agenda, rather than the inevitably time consuming operational matters (superintendent’s business) crowding so many board meetings. Superintendent’s business is handled (when needed) through the consent agenda.

27. 27 1st Year of PG Implementation Linkage – with ‘owners’ Monitoring – to assure performance* Policy – review policies Slide 27 With initial policies in place, we focused our first year’s agenda on the 3 board job products: (1) Linkage with our community, (2) Assurance of executive (hence district) performance, and (3) Policy review. As written in policy GP-8, we scheduled monitoring reports for each of our 46 policies, making judgments throughout the year that when assembled at the end of the year constitute evaluation of the district, and hence the superintendent. Policies for ends and executive limitations require monitoring to see if the superintendent is achieving what she should and avoiding conditions she should avoid. Policies for governance process and board/ superintendent relations require monitoring to see if the board chair is doing his job, and whether the board follows its own policy and honors its relationship with the superintendent. 4 linkage meetings were scheduled during the year, 2 for academic achievement, 1 for life-long learning/the world of work, and 1 for citizenship/character and contribution/service. In linkage meetings the only board role was to listen to community values and priorities. The year concluded with annual summative evaluation of the superintendent.Slide 27 With initial policies in place, we focused our first year’s agenda on the 3 board job products: (1) Linkage with our community, (2) Assurance of executive (hence district) performance, and (3) Policy review. As written in policy GP-8, we scheduled monitoring reports for each of our 46 policies, making judgments throughout the year that when assembled at the end of the year constitute evaluation of the district, and hence the superintendent. Policies for ends and executive limitations require monitoring to see if the superintendent is achieving what she should and avoiding conditions she should avoid. Policies for governance process and board/ superintendent relations require monitoring to see if the board chair is doing his job, and whether the board follows its own policy and honors its relationship with the superintendent. 4 linkage meetings were scheduled during the year, 2 for academic achievement, 1 for life-long learning/the world of work, and 1 for citizenship/character and contribution/service. In linkage meetings the only board role was to listen to community values and priorities. The year concluded with annual summative evaluation of the superintendent.

28. 28 Lessons Learned Discipline Evaluation Monitoring Linkage Meetings Strategic Plan Budget Existing Policy Slide 28 Lessons were learned during the first year for: - board self-discipline; - superintendent eval, and board self-evaluation; - monitoring superintendent and board performance; - linkage with the district’s ‘owners’; - the content and process of meetings; - how our strategic plan is created and updated; - how the budget is formed and approved; - what to do with existing policy.Slide 28 Lessons were learned during the first year for: - board self-discipline; - superintendent eval, and board self-evaluation; - monitoring superintendent and board performance; - linkage with the district’s ‘owners’; - the content and process of meetings; - how our strategic plan is created and updated; - how the budget is formed and approved; - what to do with existing policy.

29. 29 Board (Self-)Discipline “Boards are the least disciplined, least rational, and most disordered element in any school system.” Gene Royer - School Board Leadership 2000 Decide group expectations about: Attendance – Individual authority Meeting Preparation – Conflict of interest Everyone enforces GP policies Board Chair not the enforcer Individual member responsibility Slide 29 “Boards are the least disciplined, least rational, and most disordered element in any school system.” John Carver’s quote emphasizes the importance of board self-discipline, since the board retains ultimate power and authority in a school district. In developing our policies about governance process, our board already enjoyed a culture that demanded board member attendance at meetings, and a duty to exercise independent judgment. We also had no trouble agreeing to come to meetings prepared and well-read, and to avoid conflicts of interest. We consider these elements of policy governance to be elements of most traditional forms of governance. The responsibility of individual board members to enforce the board’s own agreed-on process was one we easily accepted, but acting on that commitment is not always easily done. We tended to rely on the board chair for enforcement, so this principle required additional emphasis during our first year. We also had to fight the urge to focus board attention and spend board time on superintendent business.Slide 29 “Boards are the least disciplined, least rational, and most disordered element in any school system.” John Carver’s quote emphasizes the importance of board self-discipline, since the board retains ultimate power and authority in a school district. In developing our policies about governance process, our board already enjoyed a culture that demanded board member attendance at meetings, and a duty to exercise independent judgment. We also had no trouble agreeing to come to meetings prepared and well-read, and to avoid conflicts of interest. We consider these elements of policy governance to be elements of most traditional forms of governance. The responsibility of individual board members to enforce the board’s own agreed-on process was one we easily accepted, but acting on that commitment is not always easily done. We tended to rely on the board chair for enforcement, so this principle required additional emphasis during our first year. We also had to fight the urge to focus board attention and spend board time on superintendent business.

30. 30 Superintendent Evaluation ‘Behavior/style’ eval checklist at end of year vs. systematic gathering of judgments on monitoring reports throughout the year Accepting reports not good enough Only evaluate against written criteria in policy (Ends and Executive Limitations) To what extent does the organization… Achieve what is to be achieved, and Avoid what is to be avoided? “Any reasonable interpretation” rule Slide 30 As mentioned earlier, our process of superintendent evaluation had some features that needed adjusting. We had been very diligent about our yearly duty to evaluate the supt, so our problem wasn’t if, but how best, to do annual superintendent evaluation. We had for many years used a checklist of desirable superintendent qualities & behaviors. That approach failed to give enough priority to overall district results – it hardly matters to have the superintendent do everything in the prescribed way if the outcome for students is poor. Under policy governance our superintendent evaluation asks if district results for students (ends policies) are being achieved while acceptable behavior/conditions (executive limitations) are not violated. Monitoring reports were not by themselves enough. We had to, as a board, judge data in those reports against previously stated criteria, then publicly say whether she has exercised ‘any reasonable interpretation’ of policy.Slide 30 As mentioned earlier, our process of superintendent evaluation had some features that needed adjusting. We had been very diligent about our yearly duty to evaluate the supt, so our problem wasn’t if, but how best, to do annual superintendent evaluation. We had for many years used a checklist of desirable superintendent qualities & behaviors. That approach failed to give enough priority to overall district results – it hardly matters to have the superintendent do everything in the prescribed way if the outcome for students is poor. Under policy governance our superintendent evaluation asks if district results for students (ends policies) are being achieved while acceptable behavior/conditions (executive limitations) are not violated. Monitoring reports were not by themselves enough. We had to, as a board, judge data in those reports against previously stated criteria, then publicly say whether she has exercised ‘any reasonable interpretation’ of policy.

31. 31 Board (Self-)Evaluation Regular self-evaluation of meetings (rotating the duty - not the chair) Is the board following the model? Are meetings dedicated to board work or are we still doing staff work? Annual self-evaluation Slide 31 Just as we owe our superintendent a public declaration (ongoing during the year) as to whether or how well she has followed board policy for ends and executive limitations, we also owe it to ourselves and the community to publicly declare the extent to which we are following our own policies for governance process (our own behavior) and for board/superintendent relations (how board and superintendent interact). When we inaugurated policy governance we immediately began a habit of evaluating meetings, so that we regularly reminded ourselves of our agreed-on commitment to the process. At first we left it up to the board chair to do this, but he sometimes forgot. We now rotate the responsibility among board members. The vice president assigns the person by giving him/her an evaluation checklist at the beginning of the meeting. The superintendent’s secretary ensures that the vice president’s meeting folder has a blank form for this purpose. Our last meeting agenda item, before announcements, is board self-evaluation, which takes only one or two minutes. Something we are not yet satisfied with is our process for annual self-evaluation.Slide 31 Just as we owe our superintendent a public declaration (ongoing during the year) as to whether or how well she has followed board policy for ends and executive limitations, we also owe it to ourselves and the community to publicly declare the extent to which we are following our own policies for governance process (our own behavior) and for board/superintendent relations (how board and superintendent interact). When we inaugurated policy governance we immediately began a habit of evaluating meetings, so that we regularly reminded ourselves of our agreed-on commitment to the process. At first we left it up to the board chair to do this, but he sometimes forgot. We now rotate the responsibility among board members. The vice president assigns the person by giving him/her an evaluation checklist at the beginning of the meeting. The superintendent’s secretary ensures that the vice president’s meeting folder has a blank form for this purpose. Our last meeting agenda item, before announcements, is board self-evaluation, which takes only one or two minutes. Something we are not yet satisfied with is our process for annual self-evaluation.

32. 32 Monitoring Delegation w/o monitoring is abdication Write performance criteria into policy Set method/frequency of monitoring Internal Reports External reports Direct Inspection Board makes judgments about data Were prescribed Ends achieved? Criteria? Were Means within limitations? Criteria? Do we need to refine policy/criteria? Slide 32 Delegation of board authority without monitoring district/superintendent performance would be an abdication of our responsibility. When we judge district performance against policy criteria we give the supt the courtesy of knowing ahead of time how we will judge her success. Under policy governance she is not left wondering in April or May how things will come out in June, because she knows from month to month how the monitoring has gone. We are also less susceptible to the ‘time of year’ phenomenon that sometimes affects evaluation of a year-long period. We scheduled monitoring of policies nearly every month during our 1st year, leaving slack only in months when linkage meetings were scheduled. We also grouped related policies together for monitoring in the same month. Of 3 types of monitoring reports, internal reporting has been our most-employed monitoring method. The only use of an external report was the annual financial audit. Direct inspection has not yet been used. We plan to continue exploring the best use of these methods. Through monitoring the board needs to answer these questions: Was sufficient information provided to enable the board to judge whether ends were achieved and means were in compliance with criteria spelled out in policy? Does our policy criteria need further refinement? During the first year we revised __ policies in the process of monitoring their use. Slide 32 Delegation of board authority without monitoring district/superintendent performance would be an abdication of our responsibility. When we judge district performance against policy criteria we give the supt the courtesy of knowing ahead of time how we will judge her success. Under policy governance she is not left wondering in April or May how things will come out in June, because she knows from month to month how the monitoring has gone. We are also less susceptible to the ‘time of year’ phenomenon that sometimes affects evaluation of a year-long period. We scheduled monitoring of policies nearly every month during our 1st year, leaving slack only in months when linkage meetings were scheduled. We also grouped related policies together for monitoring in the same month. Of 3 types of monitoring reports, internal reporting has been our most-employed monitoring method. The only use of an external report was the annual financial audit. Direct inspection has not yet been used. We plan to continue exploring the best use of these methods. Through monitoring the board needs to answer these questions: Was sufficient information provided to enable the board to judge whether ends were achieved and means were in compliance with criteria spelled out in policy? Does our policy criteria need further refinement? During the first year we revised __ policies in the process of monitoring their use.

33. 33 Ends & Linkage “The most frequent dialogue of boards should be with the public, not with its staff” John Carver Planned input Focused not random Owners - not just customers Validate owner input by deliberating Slide 33 The most important positive result of our 1st year under policy governance was clearly prioritized board work toward the development and refinement of ends. Linkage is the means by which the board consults with the public about community values and priorities for our ends policies. In our linkage meetings the board’s role is to listen. In contrast with the unplanned and often random input received during the ‘open mike’ portion of board meetings, linkage meetings focus on topics and questions chosen before-hand by the board. Similarly, linkage meetings are for owners rather than customers or stakeholders, who can be expected to give ‘interest-group’ input at traditional board meetings. Unfocused/unsolicited input is saved for another time. Invited ‘owners’ of the community’s schools are asked to contribute their voice to board deliberations about a pre-planned topic. Our obligation in return is give them our attention, and to listen. After later deliberation, we validate what we heard when we discuss at a board meeting what was said, and deliberate on its policy implications. During the first year of implementation we significantly revised 5 of 6 ends policies in response to linkage input.Slide 33 The most important positive result of our 1st year under policy governance was clearly prioritized board work toward the development and refinement of ends. Linkage is the means by which the board consults with the public about community values and priorities for our ends policies. In our linkage meetings the board’s role is to listen. In contrast with the unplanned and often random input received during the ‘open mike’ portion of board meetings, linkage meetings focus on topics and questions chosen before-hand by the board. Similarly, linkage meetings are for owners rather than customers or stakeholders, who can be expected to give ‘interest-group’ input at traditional board meetings. Unfocused/unsolicited input is saved for another time. Invited ‘owners’ of the community’s schools are asked to contribute their voice to board deliberations about a pre-planned topic. Our obligation in return is give them our attention, and to listen. After later deliberation, we validate what we heard when we discuss at a board meeting what was said, and deliberate on its policy implications. During the first year of implementation we significantly revised 5 of 6 ends policies in response to linkage input.

34. 34 Board Meetings: Board Business Old: Link with staff Receive staff reports Approve staff work Agenda prepared by staff, ad hoc items added by board Q: “What’s going on?” New: Link with ‘owners’ Monitor performance Revise policies Agenda prep by board in annual plan and written in policy Q: “What’s important?”or “How did we do?” Slide 34 Under a traditional format our board meetings tended to focus on staff business that by law or tradition have been brought to the board for approval. Meetings in this format usually consisted of conversations between board and staff. Meetings under policy governance focus on the 3 job products of a board: linkage, policy, and assurance of performance. Meeting agendas previously were dominated by staff reports about staff activity, and board approval of superintendent business. Now they are concerned with monitoring district/superintendent performance against criteria written into policy, and revising those policies as needed to ensure the community’s (hence the board’s) values are clearly stated. Agendas for board meetings were primarily prepared by the superintendent, approved by the chair, and followed by the board. Now the agenda is developed by the board at the beginning of the year, effectively delegating old meeting business to the superintendent. Rather than answering the question ‘What’s going on?’ our meetings now consider questions of ‘What is important?’, and ‘How has district performance met our stated expectations?’Slide 34 Under a traditional format our board meetings tended to focus on staff business that by law or tradition have been brought to the board for approval. Meetings in this format usually consisted of conversations between board and staff. Meetings under policy governance focus on the 3 job products of a board: linkage, policy, and assurance of performance. Meeting agendas previously were dominated by staff reports about staff activity, and board approval of superintendent business. Now they are concerned with monitoring district/superintendent performance against criteria written into policy, and revising those policies as needed to ensure the community’s (hence the board’s) values are clearly stated. Agendas for board meetings were primarily prepared by the superintendent, approved by the chair, and followed by the board. Now the agenda is developed by the board at the beginning of the year, effectively delegating old meeting business to the superintendent. Rather than answering the question ‘What’s going on?’ our meetings now consider questions of ‘What is important?’, and ‘How has district performance met our stated expectations?’

35. 35 Strategic Plan Traditional strategic plan Primary focus on means: Plans & Programs Less emphasis on fully defined Ends:What result, for whom, at what cost/priority Strategic planning changes Board retains small (critical) part:Ends policies – Executive limitation policies Superintendent gets the remainder: Strategies that must meet criteria established in policy Board controls through policy/monitoring Slide 35 Five years ago, pre-dating our adoption of policy governance, we began rethinking our strategic planning process. We had developed a very good long-range plan, with a good mission statement, clear long-term goals, and values/parameters to which the district was firmly committed. But our strategic planning system fell short when we tried to supplement the long-range plan with strategies and action plans to guide mid-range and short-range operational decisions. Inevitably the planning team’s efforts failed to provide short-range planning or operational guidance that was useful in running the district. The two perspectives (strategic and operational) seemed disconnected. Policy governance addresses this flaw by breaking down traditional strategic planning into board-reserved and superintendent-delegated business. The board deals with board-reserved issues by communicating values/priorities through ends and means policies. It delegates the remainder to the superintendent, so she now has the authority she needs to manage operations and make timely decisions in the best interests of the district. Through its monitoring of ends and means policies the board controls (through policy) both strategic and operational planning, but avoids perpetuating the false notion that it is running the district.Slide 35 Five years ago, pre-dating our adoption of policy governance, we began rethinking our strategic planning process. We had developed a very good long-range plan, with a good mission statement, clear long-term goals, and values/parameters to which the district was firmly committed. But our strategic planning system fell short when we tried to supplement the long-range plan with strategies and action plans to guide mid-range and short-range operational decisions. Inevitably the planning team’s efforts failed to provide short-range planning or operational guidance that was useful in running the district. The two perspectives (strategic and operational) seemed disconnected. Policy governance addresses this flaw by breaking down traditional strategic planning into board-reserved and superintendent-delegated business. The board deals with board-reserved issues by communicating values/priorities through ends and means policies. It delegates the remainder to the superintendent, so she now has the authority she needs to manage operations and make timely decisions in the best interests of the district. Through its monitoring of ends and means policies the board controls (through policy) both strategic and operational planning, but avoids perpetuating the false notion that it is running the district.

36. 36 Budget Board prioritizes spending in Ends Policies Here ‘meddling’ on behalf of ownership is ok Means criteria in Exec Limitations policies Debt – Fund Balance – Spending Limitations Frees up Superintendent to plan the budget No board ‘meddling’ in the Supt’s plan Hard to do – the public expects meddling Board retains control by monitoring frequently against policy criteria Slide 36 Budget planning, approval, and execution is another area which has changed. The board under policy governance addresses these functions directly, by deciding up front what the priorities are, then directing the superintendent to prepare a budget that will enable the district to achieve district ends while avoiding conditions explicitly described in executive limitations. Instead of ad hoc meddling in the budget document itself, the board is encouraged, under policy governance, to ‘meddle’ in policy by defining values and priorities for staff to follow in preparing and executing the budget. Means policy language that influenced the budget this past August included restrictions on incurring debt, spending beyond certain limits, etc. In the ends policies, values and priorities clarify what must be achieved through the use of available resources. It was the superintendent’s responsibility, then, to develop a budget that would achieve desired ends while avoiding unacceptable conditions. The board retains policy-level control of the budget through its monitoring of superintendent performance against the criteria spelled out in each policy that affects the budget.Slide 36 Budget planning, approval, and execution is another area which has changed. The board under policy governance addresses these functions directly, by deciding up front what the priorities are, then directing the superintendent to prepare a budget that will enable the district to achieve district ends while avoiding conditions explicitly described in executive limitations. Instead of ad hoc meddling in the budget document itself, the board is encouraged, under policy governance, to ‘meddle’ in policy by defining values and priorities for staff to follow in preparing and executing the budget. Means policy language that influenced the budget this past August included restrictions on incurring debt, spending beyond certain limits, etc. In the ends policies, values and priorities clarify what must be achieved through the use of available resources. It was the superintendent’s responsibility, then, to develop a budget that would achieve desired ends while avoiding unacceptable conditions. The board retains policy-level control of the budget through its monitoring of superintendent performance against the criteria spelled out in each policy that affects the budget.

37. 37 Existing Policy Manual Detailed directives/rules (305 policies) Means are prescribed in great detail Very little expressed in values terms Hand-off to Superintendent… Anything not prescribed in Ends Nor proscribed in Means Supt may modify, delete, add as needed Board approval via consent agenda Slide 37 Under policy governance our pre-existing policy manual, with its __ policies, remains in place. The board delegated the entire ‘operating policy manual’ to the superintendent. She is free to revise, delete, or extend those policies as needed. We have some unfinished business in revising those operating policies. Board policies are the board’s guidance to me. Operating policies are now my guidance to the rest of the staff. The value of the WSSDA policy advisory service to our district remains, but (instead of the board) the superintendent is their customer. Operating policies are only valuable if they are useful to the superintendent in meeting her obligations to the board as described in ends and means policy. Whenever the operating policies need adjusting, she will bring them for the legal necessity of ‘board approval’ through the consent agenda. This allows state-mandated board approvals to occur without tying up board time deliberating on something they have already delegated to me, and without the action masquerading as board business.Slide 37 Under policy governance our pre-existing policy manual, with its __ policies, remains in place. The board delegated the entire ‘operating policy manual’ to the superintendent. She is free to revise, delete, or extend those policies as needed. We have some unfinished business in revising those operating policies. Board policies are the board’s guidance to me. Operating policies are now my guidance to the rest of the staff. The value of the WSSDA policy advisory service to our district remains, but (instead of the board) the superintendent is their customer. Operating policies are only valuable if they are useful to the superintendent in meeting her obligations to the board as described in ends and means policy. Whenever the operating policies need adjusting, she will bring them for the legal necessity of ‘board approval’ through the consent agenda. This allows state-mandated board approvals to occur without tying up board time deliberating on something they have already delegated to me, and without the action masquerading as board business.

38. 38 Alternatives

39. 39 Alternatives Time (incremental vs policy blitz) Learning & Preparation - 1 year + Means Policies - 2 days + Ends Policies - 1 day + Implementation – 1 year Slide 38 Carver suggests two basic implementation approaches (or combinations of the two), and compares them in terms of time and money. The ‘policy blitz’ enables a board to move quickly, setting aside a 2-3 day retreat for preparing a detailed set of means policies and at least one global ends policy, with which to get started. The policy blitz can be followed with immediate adoption. An incremental approach has the board moving more slowly, preparing a few policies at a time and gradually assimilating them. Conversion to the model takes considerably longer than with the ‘policy blitz’. Our board chose something closer to the latter than the former. We took more than a year to study (and absorb) the ideas in this model, gradually incorporating its concepts into our conversations but by no means moving quickly. We set aside one work-study day at a time for policy development, over a period of 4-6 months. One advantage we gained over time was that our staff members, and some ‘owners’, were familiar with this change even before we adopted it. A major element of our first year’s agenda required planning and carrying out 4 linkages, entire board meetings during which we listened to community input regarding our ends policies.Slide 38 Carver suggests two basic implementation approaches (or combinations of the two), and compares them in terms of time and money. The ‘policy blitz’ enables a board to move quickly, setting aside a 2-3 day retreat for preparing a detailed set of means policies and at least one global ends policy, with which to get started. The policy blitz can be followed with immediate adoption. An incremental approach has the board moving more slowly, preparing a few policies at a time and gradually assimilating them. Conversion to the model takes considerably longer than with the ‘policy blitz’. Our board chose something closer to the latter than the former. We took more than a year to study (and absorb) the ideas in this model, gradually incorporating its concepts into our conversations but by no means moving quickly. We set aside one work-study day at a time for policy development, over a period of 4-6 months. One advantage we gained over time was that our staff members, and some ‘owners’, were familiar with this change even before we adopted it. A major element of our first year’s agenda required planning and carrying out 4 linkages, entire board meetings during which we listened to community input regarding our ends policies.

40. 40 Alternatives Money 2002/3 (Preparing to implement) Reading materials, Travel, Training $8,900+ Slide 39 Expenses associated with our district’s implementation include: During 2002-2003 (while preparing for adoption): Purchase of reading materials – more than $400 Travel and attending aasa-sponsored training (Aspen Institute - $8,500) Total spent while preparing for adoption: $8,900Slide 39 Expenses associated with our district’s implementation include: During 2002-2003 (while preparing for adoption): Purchase of reading materials – more than $400 Travel and attending aasa-sponsored training (Aspen Institute - $8,500) Total spent while preparing for adoption: $8,900

41. 41 Alternatives Money 2003/4 (1st year of implementation) Training, Consultation, Survey, Mailing, Printing $6,700 2004/5 (2nd year) Consultation = $7,000 Slide 40 Expenses during 2003-2004 (the first year of implementation): Attending WSSDA-sponsored training (Issaquah/Miriam Carver - $100) Mailing and printing of materials for linkage meetings - $2,500 Consultation – we used a local consultant to facilitate our linkage meetings ($3,700) rather than a carver-trained pg consultant or consultant team. End-of-year survey - $400+ Total for 2003-2004: $6,700 For 2004-2005 (our second year of implementation, and third year overall) we decided to hire the Aspen Group to do a policy review and provide comments/recommendations ($7,000)Slide 40 Expenses during 2003-2004 (the first year of implementation): Attending WSSDA-sponsored training (Issaquah/Miriam Carver - $100) Mailing and printing of materials for linkage meetings - $2,500 Consultation – we used a local consultant to facilitate our linkage meetings ($3,700) rather than a carver-trained pg consultant or consultant team. End-of-year survey - $400+ Total for 2003-2004: $6,700 For 2004-2005 (our second year of implementation, and third year overall) we decided to hire the Aspen Group to do a policy review and provide comments/recommendations ($7,000)

42. 42 Alternatives Money 2002/3 - $8,900 2003/4 - $6,700 Total for implementation: $15,600 2004/5 - $7,000 Total to date - $22,600 Slide 41 Total to date, for 2002-3, 2003-4, and 2004-5: $22,600Slide 41 Total to date, for 2002-3, 2003-4, and 2004-5: $22,600

43. 43 Final Thoughts Who’s In Charge? For board business: The board is in charge, and must do the work. For all other business: The superintendent runs the show & is accountable for same. Slide 42 Recall the “Who’s in charge?” question our district wrestled with. Our answer under policy governance: For board business: the board is in charge, and must do the work. For all other business: the superintendent runs the show and is accountable to the board for same.Slide 42 Recall the “Who’s in charge?” question our district wrestled with. Our answer under policy governance: For board business: the board is in charge, and must do the work. For all other business: the superintendent runs the show and is accountable to the board for same.

44. 44 Questions?