Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Managing for Results in America’s Great City SchoolsA Report of the Performance A Report of the Performance Measurement & Benchmarking Measurement & Benchmarking ProjectProject
Council of the Great City SchoolsCouncil of the Great City Schools
Chief Operating Officers ConferenceChief Operating Officers ConferenceApril 2007April 2007
2
Project Purpose
Establish a common set of key performance measures for Operations, Finance, Human Resources, and Information Technology functions,
Benchmark district performance in these operational areas among CGCS member districts across the United States, and
Inventory effective management practices used by top performing districts, so other member districts can utilize them where applicable and viable to do so.
3
Benchmarking Performance The goal of benchmarking:
Examine how districts compare to their peers, Learn what effective practices are being used by top
performing districts, and Apply methods to improve performance by studying their
circumstances and approaches.
The four major steps in the benchmarking process include: Select and compile data to compare districts Identify factors in which performance leads and lags Study the gaps between districts Provide information for districts to develop recommendations
and propose actions to close the gap.
4
Value for Operational Leadership National perspective on how urban schools are managing
their resources within administrative functions.
Information about management practices, disciplines, culture, accountability and other factors that make them best practice districts.
Executives can quickly spot gaps in cost, quality and timeliness compared to their peers.
Knowledge development for general managers across a broad array of operational responsibilities.
5
Value for Instructional Leadership Ensure effective service to provide the
highest quality for students and staff.
Maximize efficient operational costs so financial resources are prioritized to instruction.
Reduce the operational burden on school sites.
6
Value for Boards & Superintendents Accountability
Moving to outcome based discussions and away from process based discussions
Clarity Prioritizing efforts that drive the core mission based on data
driven decisions. Progress
Assessing where we are relative to district-wide goals and objectives
Context Benchmarking with other districts to better understand
performance and practices leading to improvements Transparency
Reporting outcomes that enhance public trust
7
Project Outcomes
The benchmark data will provide districts with a focused view on where they perform well, and where they may have an opportunity for improvement.
The “gap analysis” will provide districts with an inventory of effective practices they may be able to adopt to enhance their performance.
8
Overview and Status Report
9
Project Stages
Stage I: Operations Launched April 2006
Stage II: Finance Launched November 2006
Stage III: Human Resources Launched March 2007
Stage IV: Information Technology Launches June 2007
10
Project Phases
Identify functional areas for study Establish technical teams with expertise in each function Assess components of functional area to determine what
needs to be commonly measured Establish a clearinghouse of performance measures Select key performance measures for study Establish standardized definitions and methodology Survey CGCS member districts Collect, analyze, and report data Conduct gap analysis between districts Inventory effective management practices that create the
most effective performance
11
Status Report: Operations
12
Operations: Pilot
Sample study of 20 school districts Areas: Food Services & Transportation Lessons Learned from sample benchmarking
Some are not measuring critical areas of performance
Some realized they were not as good as they thought
Some realized they are better than they thought Measures are not standardized in our industry Data can be unreliable
13
Operations: Pilot
On-Time Performance
92.00%93.00%
95.00%95.00%95.00%
96.00%96.30%
97.00%98.00%98.00%
98.89%99.00%99.00%
99.60%99.63%99.90%99.95%
100.00%
Not TrackedNo Data
80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
District 01District 02District 03District 04District 05District 06District 07District 08District 09District 10
MEDIANDistrict 11District 12District 13District 14District 15District 16District 17District 18District 19
Percentage
Variance in Minutes
715
1015
10
510
65
910
1510
10
No DataNot Tracked
5
20
No Data
By Bell
0 5 10 15 20
Minutes
April Chief Business & Operating Officers ConferenceSample KPI: Yellow Bus On-Time Performance
14
Operations: Functional Areas Five operational areas were selected by COOs from
around the country for inclusion: Transportation Food Services Maintenance & Operations (M&O) Procurement/Supply Chain Safety & Security
Technical Team Leads from Buffalo, Indianapolis, Jackson, Miami, St. Paul with 34 other technical team members from 22 districts
15
Operations: Technical Team Leads Transportation
John Fahey Buffalo Public Schools
Food Services Jean Ronnei St. Paul Public Schools
Maintenance & Operations Steve Young Indianapolis Public Schools
Procurement/Supply Chain Joseph Gomez Miami-Dade County Public
Schools
Safety & Security Michael Thomas Jackson Public Schools
Six Sigma Methodologies Deb Ware Fort Worth Independent
School District Project Data Analysis
Katherine Blasik Broward County Public
Schools
16
Operations: Performance Measures A clearinghouse of 208 potential measures was
established A total of 135 were selected for inclusion 50 were identified for initial reporting Utilized Six Sigma methods (Dallas ISD) to
ensure valid and reliable data Definition of the measure Calculation of the measure Source of the data
17
Operations: Survey Development CGCS partnered with K12 Insight to establish an
online survey tool for data collection Scope
Survey included 65 CGCS member districts A total of 311 questions asked A total of 624 data points collected
Collected data only to ensure integrity of calculations Districts did not perform their own calculations
18
Project Management: Fred Schmitt, Chief Financial Officer, Norfolk, Va.
The Finance stage was launched at the Chief Financial Officers Conference November 2006
Functional areas for review will include Financial Management and General Accounting
Technical team were identified led by Chief Financial Officers and technical teams of directors from selected functional areas.
Fred Schmitt will provide a detailed update Thursday
Status Report: Finance
19
Status Report: Human Resources Project Management:
Dan Cochran, Chief HR Officer, Ret., Broward County, Fl.
The HR stage was launched at the Human Resource & Development Officers conference March 1-3, 2007.
Functional areas for review will include Employee Relations, Human Resources Operations, and Recruitment & Staffing.
Technical Team leads were identified, and HR officers with expertise in each area above have volunteered for the technical teams.
HR officers have mapped initial concept areas for measurement, established measures for many, and have begun to define measurement methodologies.
20
Status Report: Information Technology Project Management:
Mike Casey, Chief Technology Officer, San Diego, Ca.
The IT Stage will be launched at the Management Information Symposium in Albuquerque June 2007.
Technical support is being formulated at this time, and technical teams and functional review areas will be identified in June.
21
Next Steps
Refine program approach Stabilize current measures Differentiate Key Performance Indicators “KPIs” and
subordinate measures Examine other functional areas Review critical dates for gathering current data Establish a senior advisory team and new members
of the technical teams.
Ownership by member districts and supported by the Council of Great City Schools
22
Contact Information
Robert CarlsonDirector of Management ServicesCouncil of Great City [email protected]
Michael EugeneBusiness ManagerLos Angeles Unified School [email protected]
Heidi HrowalPrincipal Administrative AnalystLos Angeles Unified School [email protected]
