1. Marshall School Board Review January 6, 2014

2. Premise for evaluation Aligned to our core values Helps determine strengths and opportunities for growth as a governing body Accountability and transparency in governance Focus on continuous improvement and effectiveness in governance Aligned to the standards of governance prepared by the Minnesota School Board Association Overall – we want to get better!

3. Identified a variety of constituents including board members, administration, staff, and community representatives Obtained input from constituents via survey instrument Data compiled into format for board information and review

4. Vision Structure Accountability Advocacy Conduct and Ethics Attributes of the Board Areas of Focus for the Tool

5. Tool Metrics 4 point rubric – 1 = Unsatisfactory – 2 = Requires Improvement – 3 = Meets Criteria – 4 = Exceeds – 0 = Not Observed Remember.... an average rating on a 4 point scale is a 2.5 rating...

6. Vision All areas were above average ratings. Average rating was 3.32. 2011-12 average rating was 3.29. 2012-2013 average rating was 3.26. Plus – The board, working with its community, has developed and adopted a written statement of the district’s vision(rating of 3.47). Delta – The board has a process to review, update, and communicate the vision to and for the district (6 ratings of 4, 5 ratings of 3, 6 ratings of 2; average of 3.00). Plus – The board has developed and adopted long-and short-range plans to work toward achieving the vision.(rating of 3.45). Delta – The board keeps the district focused on the educational welfare of all(2 ratings of 4, 8 ratings of 3, 1 ratings of 2; average of 3.09).

7. Vision Comments and Observations I'm happy about the partnerships between the school district and the community and look forward to building even more. I believe we have a "focus" on the educational welfare of all, but the achievement gap continues/widens thus the need for improvement. Compared to other school boards, the Marshall board does a nice job focusing on the vision and mission for the district's future.

8. Structure All areas were above average ratings. Average rating for Structure was 3.34. Plus – The board has written policies that are clear, concise, current, and in compliance with all laws AND The board uses the superintendent as its CEO and delegates through the superintendent to manage district affairs (3.64 ). Delta – The board provides safe, adequate facilities (3 response of 4, 3 responses of 3, 4 response of 2 and 1 response of 1 avg. 2.73). 2011-12 average rating was 3.28. 2012-13 average rating was 3.37. Plus – The board has written policies that are clear, concise, current, and in compliance with all laws (3.53 ). Delta – The board oversees district management by employing a superintendent and evaluating his/her performance in providing leadership, managing operations, and performing duties assigned by law (7 response of 4, 6 responses of 3, 2 response of 2 and 1 response of 1 avg. 3.19).

9. Structure Comments and Observations I feel more of the budget surplus should be spent in order to improve technology and safety. The budget surplus is growing and has the potential to hold back growth and improvements in our programs. Safe buildings is a major issue. Would like to see comparative results for "Reserves" for schools in our area or of similar size to Marshall. Although we have a goal of minimum 8% reserve and have operated with this assumption for years, I question if this is strong enough based on what I hear from others in the system.

10. Structure Comments and Observations continued... Providing safe learning environment has taken a new meaning the past few years, thus the need for improvements. I worry about the legal issues facing the District if improvements are not made and an unfortunate incident occurs. The level of providing increased security/safe environment for students has been raised substantially in the past few years, thus the need to provide improvement. Also, very concerned that if improvements are not made, what kind of legal impact it might have on the School District. The board understands the role they have related to policy. The board does a nice job of working through the superintendent to achieve the district goals.

11. Accountability All areas were above average ratings. Average rating for Accountability was 3.25. Plus – The board demonstrates fiscal responsibility. (This year the rating was 3.59). Delta – The board ensures progress toward the achievement of district goals (rating 3.18 with 3 ratings of 4 and 14 ratings of 3). 2011-12 average rating was 3.34. 2012-13 average rating was 3.25. Plus – The board demonstrates fiscal responsibility. (This year the rating was 3.64). Delta – The board ensures progress toward the achievement of district goals (rating 3.18 with 2 ratings of 4 and 9 ratings of 3).

12. Accountability Comments and Observations We are lucky to have Bruce Lamprecht leading us in the fiscal area. Very knowledgeable and strong understanding of School systems. The board should regularly review the policies.

13. Advocacy 2011-12 average rating was 3.13. 2012-13 average rating was 3.01. All areas were above average ratings. Average rating for Advocacy was 3.02. Plus – Two areas – (1)recognition of achievements and (2) leadership in securing support from administration in support of mission, vision and goals and resources needed to achieve them (ratings of 3.06). Delta – Board promotes the welfare of the district and all children through the political process at the local, state, and national levels. (1 ratings of 4, 6 ratings of 3, 4 ratings of 2; avg. 2.73) Plus – Three areas – (1)recognition of achievements, (2) leadership in securing support from teachers and staff in support for mission, vision and goals and resources needed to achieve them (3) leadership in securing support from administration in support of mission, vision and goals and resources needed to achieve them (ratings of 3.06). Delta – Board promotes the welfare of the district and all children through the political process at the local, state, and national levels. (2 ratings of 4, 12 ratings of 3, 2 ratings of 2 and 1 rating of 1; avg. 2.88)

14. Advocacy Comments and Observations I still wonder if we could have done a better job of engaging faculty/staff in regards to the referendum and the vote might have turned out different. The board did not have any member step up and help lead and educate the community on the levy that they asked the community to vote for. The board members should have or could have been more active in helping the referendum vote.

15. Conduct and Ethics 2012-13 average rating was 3.23. 2011-12 average rating was 3.36. All areas were above average ratings. Average rating for Conduct and Ethics was 3.39. Plus –The Board respects the majority decision after honoring the right of members to express opposing viewpoints and vote their convictions & the board establishes and follows local policies, procedures and ethical standards governing the conduct and operation of the board. (both with ratings of 3.50). Delta – The board develops skills in teamwork, problem solving, and decision making (3.20). Plus –The Board respects the majority decision after honoring the right of members to express opposing viewpoints and vote their convictions (both with ratings of 3.35). Delta – The board develops skills in teamwork, problem solving, and decision making (3.12).

16. Conduct/Ethics Comments and Observations I think the addition of 2 student reps has been very positive and look forward to this as an ongoing thing. Addition of Student Representative was a positive step for the board/superintendent to gain valuable feedback from students.

17. Attributes 2011-12 average rating was 3.32. 2012-13 average rating was 3.17. All areas were above average ratings. Average rating for Attributes was 3.25. Plus – Board maintains a positive attitude that is cooperative and collaborative (rating 3.83). Delta – The board demonstrates evidence of gathering necessary facts and information before making decisions (3 ratings of 4, 11 ratings of 3, 1 rating of 2, and 1 rating of 1); The board demonstrates the ability to build trust and confidence in others (3 ratings of 4, 11 ratings of 3, 1 rating of 2 and 1 rating of 1) both avg. 3.0. Plus – Board maintains a positive attitude that is cooperative and collaborative & the Board demonstrates the ability to build trust and confidence of others. (rating 3.40). Delta – The Board demonstrates the ability to effectively use time in completing district priorities (rating of 3.0).

18. Attributes Comments and Observations No comments were offered in this section...

19. Other Comments – Items Not Specifically Noted on Evaluation “I am thankful for the different perspectives each board member brings. I also appreciate the common denominator is that 'it's for the kids.” “It is hard work, thank you for sharing your time and talents for our students.” “Overall, the board does a very good job representing the community in all facets of oversight of the district operations.” “We have a great tem of School Board members who I feel do everything in their power to take education to the next level in Marshall.” “All in all the Board has done a good job. But I think we need to grow and be able to also lead our community with issues the will be coming. We need to adapt to different ideas at how to reach the goals that we set. We need to not forget the 50% of the student body that is not in band or athletics. If we really want to make Marshall Tec work, make building safely changes, make headway in the achievement gap then we need to step up and be the community leaders to make it happen.” “Could the board/Superintendent offer non-union employee's the ability to have 8 free hours of volunteer time in the community outside their normal time off policy? It would be a great way to show strong support to the community through "giving back" from the District.” “Marshall has a great board. I believe the board will need to be more active in gathering community support and engaging the community more as we go forward with technology initiatives and as we proceed with needed safety improvements. Changes are coming and we need to have the community engaged. The board can help with that effort.”

20. Overall Comments - PLUS “The lack of personal agenda “Building trust, thinking of all the students and advocating for the least advantaged. “Everyone works as a team and knows each others strengths.” “Very collaborative.” “Work together, respect each other.” “Strong tenure/knowledge of board members.” “Listen.” “Diverse perspectives.” “Good thinkers.” “Strategic.” “Do not micro-manage.

21. Overall Comments - OFI “Finding ways to keep the community/staff involved and aware-but this isn't for lack of trying.” “Continue to search out those parents and students who are least engaged to demonstrate their voices are important.” “There are times that I feel we are a puppet board and if we do not vote with the pack we are questioned as to why we voted the way we did and asked if we ever understood the issue at hand.” “More involvement in carrying out and supporting the referendum process.” “Community engagement.” “Active in the political process - state and local.” “Current on policy reviews.”

22. Suggested Next Steps... Identify an area of focus. In the future the governance committee of board can process potential action steps to recommend improvements for the entire board in the identified area. Continue to celebrate strengths and each other!

23. Any questions, comments or discussion?