wow community diagnostic instrument

WOW Community Diagnostic Instrument A. Stake-holder Engagement

SYSTEM ELEMENTS

EVIDENCE/INDICATORS

RUBRIC

1. Is excellence in complementary education a priority for the community?

a) For the federation? reports, public statements by leaders, PR and campaign materials, history of financial support, staff time allocated

Consistently high Intermittently high (i.e., for some or some of the time)

Medium Low

b) For the central agency? initiatives past and present, allocation of resources and staff time, participation in national initiatives (e.g., CTI), relevant PD for staff, agency PR

Strong history of involvement

Moderate/intermittent/uneven history of involvement

Low None

c) For the congregations?

i) Rabbis personal involvement with educational program, visibility of education program in congregation (e.g., in services, sermons), treatment of ed director (team approach?), knowledgability about education and issues


Medium Low

ii) Educators director full-time status, professional background and training, participation in professional learning, advocacy activities within congregation


Medium Low

iii) Volunteer leaders budgetary support, personal involvement in learning, visibility of education program in congregational life (e.g., at meetings, events), visibility and respect for director and teachers within the congregation,


Medium Low

iv) Families Parental participation in educational activities, involvement with education program (e.g., service on committees, active PTA, etc.)


Medium Low

v) Others local newspaper coverage emphasizing issues of quality, innovation; funders making special donations/grants for complementary education


Medium Low

2. Are there any active coalitions focusing on aligning or improving complementary education in the community?

relevant prof and/or lay leaders meet regularly, formal task force or commission or committee exists

broad and active coalitions

limited scope and activity none

3. Are there complementary education initiatives underway in the community?

Numerous, highly active, ambitious, multiple actors

Few or limited in scope and participation

none

4. Are there any organizations/entities that have taken on or been charged with the task of “adding it up?” – figuring out how to bring the pieces together?

formal mandate given to or assumed by local CA or equivalent, “linking” activities taking place (coordinating meetings, task force, community-wide events, etc.)

Clear mandate to organization/entity

Organization/entity assumes role but not clear/recognized by others

Organization/entity identified (by self or others) but has not taken on task

No identified lead organization/ entity

B. Community Vision and Demand

SYSTEM ELEMENTS

EVIDENCE/INDICATORS

RUBRIC

1. Is there a strong, positive vision for complementary education that is widely held? Does the community have an articulated measurable “big picture goal” for complementary education?

Formal statement, report, etc., articulating a vision; history of vision-infused activity in this area involving multiple stakeholders, conversations with stakeholders manifesting vision- or goal-oriented thinking and energy

Well-articulated, widely endorsed vision

Multiple uncoordinated visions

Little vision at community and/or program level

2. Is there a strong demand for change from young people, families, educators, rabbis, funders, community leaders, external authorities? (“urgency”)

public statements by key leaders, institutions; “bottom up” initiatives underway or being developed; proposals being written, circulated; agitation at meetings; press coverage

Well-articulated, widely endorsed demand

Some (fragmented/individual) demand

Little demand at community and/or program level

3. Is the community informed and engaged regularly with data on improvement in complementary education? Community supports? Improvement initiatives? Policy/system changes?

participation in one or more national initiatives; visits by, contacts with “experts” from outside community; relevant reports, other literature being circulated and cited by key stakeholders; CA or other body actively engaged in gathering, processing, locally disseminating relevant information

Community leadership is “connected” with complementary education change movement

Moderate awareness on the part of community leaders/some community leaders “in the know”

Some awareness on the part of community leaders (or a few community leaders)

Minimal awareness on the part of community leaders

4. Are the youth and families at the table in meaningful ways? How?

participation on committees, task forces, etc. at community and individual congregational levels

High levels of participation by families and youth

Moderate levels of participation by families and youth

Minimal levels of participation by families and youth

No participation

C. Community Support

SYSTEM ELEMENTS

EVIDENCE/INDICATORS

RUBRIC

1. What are the funding sources for complementary education?

school and congregational budgets; allocations from federation / central agency; grants

Range of funding sources

Limited developed funding sources

Limited possibilities for funding sources

2. What is the level of financial support for complementary education?

comparison with other communities, national statistics

Consistently well-funded

Diverse levels of funding

Consistently under-funded

3. What additional resources are available for complementary education? What will be required to access these resources?

school and congregational budgets; funding for other educational programs in the community; philanthropic activity in the community

Range of identified and accessible resources

Limited identified and accessible resources

Perception that there are limited resources available/ or would be difficult to access

D. Intermediary Capacity

SYSTEM ELEMENTS

EVIDENCE/INDICATORS

RUBRIC

1. With what national/ umbrella organizations do the community and complementary education providers work? What supports and services do they provide?

statements from educational directors, central agency staff; reports by national organizations on their work

Wide/strong relationships with national/umbrella organizations

Intermittent/limited relationships with national/umbrella organizations

Weak/non-existent relationships with national/umbrella organizations

2. Has the community ever done community-wide planning around Jewish education issues? Complementary education? If yes, describe.

reports and minutes from previous planning initiatives; statements from participants

Full structured planning process

Limited planning process (either in terms of focus or implementation)

No community-wide planning

3. What is the degree of trust between:

a. Federation and CA

statement from key informants; press reports

Strong Moderate Weak None/Negative

b. Federation and complementary education providers



c. CA and complementary education providers



d. Complementary education providers

statements from key informants; press reports


4. How does the CA communicate/interact with complementary education providers (institutions) and networks within education provider institutions?

Statements from educational directors and central agency staff; documents (minutes, memos, etc.)

High quality, ongoing interactions & communication

Sporadic, limited, non-substantive communication

No communication

5. Can you provide some example of complementary education providers working together? What did they work on? Under what auspices? What brought them together?

statements of participants; documents

Multiple examples Limited examples No examples

6. For how many complementary educators do you provide professional development each year? What is the content of the professional development?

documents (meeting records, agendas, materials used, press accounts, evaluations); statements from participants

a. Principals & senior educators

75-100% participation; strong consistent quality

50-75% participation; and/ or moderate/ inconsistent quality

Less than 50% participation; and/ or unsatisfactory/ inconsistent quality

No professional development offered for this group

b. Teachers 75-100% participation; strong consistent quality




i. New teachers 75-100% participation; strong consistent quality




ii. Master teachers 75-100% participation; strong consistent quality




c. Specialists 75-100% participation; strong consistent quality




d. Others 75-100% participation; strong consistent quality




7. For how many CA staff who work with complementary education do you provide professional development? What is the content of the professional development?

statements of participants; records of PD activities

75-100% participation; strong consistent quality




E. Provider Capacity

SYSTEM ELEMENTS

EVIDENCE/INDICATORS

RUBRIC

1. How widespread are the practices of quality assessment and data-driven improvement planning?

statements from educational directors; reports and other documentation

Consistently high

Intermittently high (i.e., for some or some of the time)

Medium Low

2. What are the levels of requisite knowledge and skills among key stakeholders? (See matrix below)

judgments of CA executive and staff; participation in relevant professional development; statements by key informants; records of activities and initiatives embodying these areas of knowledge and skill

Consistently high

Intermittently high (i.e., for some or some of the time)

Medium Low

Knowledge and Skills Matrix (Ratings according to rubric above)

KNOWLEDGE/SKILLS DOMAINS

STAKEHOLDER GROUPS

CA Staff

Federation Staff

Complementary Education

Professionals

Rabbis

Education Chairs, Congregational Presidents, CA Board Members

dealing with Complementary

Education

Educational Change

Educational innovations in the arena of complementary education

Education planning

Marketing

Jewish educational content

Jewish educational strategies & pedagogy

Community organization & development

Other

wow community diagnostic instrument

Documents