The data category of “School Organization” requires written identification of  . . .
[Concerning ‘governance’]
1. students’ perception of the degree of care that the School exercises for them as persons
[Students perceive that the degree of care exercised for them as persons is: high, moderate, low.]
2. (a) whether there is a school ownership body distinct from the governing board/council of the school;  (b) the name of this body;  (c) its function in relationship to the school
3. the 3 ‐ 5 most significant school‐related decisions (or policies) of the governance body (i.e., the ownership body and/or the board/council) in the most recent three‐year period
4. the board’s/council’s overall sense of the efficacy of its own operations [In the accomplishment of its own operations, the school board perceives: a high degree of efficacy, a moderate degree, little degree.]
5. the form(s) of evaluation used to evaluate (a) the president and (b) the principal  [In both cases, indicate the evaluating agent/body.]
6. the board’s/council’s overall sense of the efficacy of the school in fulfilling its mission [The board/council perceives that the school fulfills its mission: to a great degree, to a moderate degree, to little degree.]
7. the perception of the school’s board/council concerning the quality of the school’s relationship with its (arch)diocese  [The board/council perceives that the quality of its relationship with its (arch)diocese is:  high; medium; low.]   
8. the perception of the (arch)diocesan school office concerning the school’s responsiveness  to (arch)diocesan policies, concerns, and requests regarding: (a) Catholicity; (b) accreditation; (c) other pertinent matters (e.g., student safety, enrollment operations, participation in diocesan‐initiated meetings) [Indicate the degree of responsiveness for each of (a), (b), and (c) here:  high degree, moderate degree, little degree.] [Concerning  ‘administration’]
9. the 3 ‐ 5 most significant work‐related challenges faced by the administration in the most
recent three‐year period
10. (a) # of administrators   (b) administrators’ years of service at the school [table: 1 to 3 years, 4 to 6, 7 to 10, 11 to 20, +20]
11. the number of administrators (a) with a teaching credential, (b) with an administrative
credential, (c) with a masters degree, (d) with a doctoral degree
12. the retention rate of school administrators (i.e., the current year compared to three years ago)
13. the administration’s overall sense of the degree of its collaboration with its board/council  [The administration perceives itself to collaborate with its board/council: to a great degree, to moderate degree, to little degree.]
14. the administrations’ overall sense of its stewardship regarding the school’s mission  [In exercising stewardship of the school’s mission, the administration perceives that it is: highly effective, moderately effective, minimally effective.]  
15. the administration’s overall sense of the efficacy of its operations [In the accomplishment of its operations, the administration perceives: a high degree of efficacy, a moderate degree, little degree.]
16. the administration’s overall sense of the degree of its cooperation with its (arch)diocesan school office regarding (a) accreditation  (b) attendance/participation at pertinent meetings initiated by the (arch)diocese  (c) other pertinent requirements [signify such] that the (arch)diocese sets for its high schools  [For each matter indicate: high degree of cooperation, moderate degree, little degree.]
17. the students’ perception of the degree to which teachers facilitate their learning  [Students
perceive that teachers facilitate their learning: to maximum degree, to moderate degree, to little degree.]
18. the 3 – 5 most significant work‐related challenges faced by teachers in the most recent three‐year period
19. (a) # of instructors   (b) instructional personnel’s years of service at the school [table . . .  1 to 3 years, 4 to 6, 7 to 10, 11 to 20, +20]
20. the number of teachers (a) with a teaching credential, (b) with an administrative credential, (c) with a masters degree, (d) with a doctoral degree
21. the retention rate of instructional personnel (i.e., current year compared to three years ago)
22. how instructional personnel are hired
23. (a) the kind(s) of formal evaluation(s) that the administration has used to evaluate teachers in the most recent three‐year period;   (b) whether the formal evaluation of all teachers by the administration is an annual experience
24. the professional development trainings that the faculty as a whole has experienced (per
administrative sponsorship) in the most recent three‐year period
25. teachers’ perception of the usefulness in the classroom of the information/skills from the
professional development trainings in #24—i.e., their overall perception and their perception
disaggregated departmentally
26. the professional development requirements that the administration sets (a) for teachers, (b) for itself (i.e., # of CEUs over a defined period of time)
27. the percentage of teachers who, on their initiative, regularly exceed the requirements of
professional development that the administration sets
28. the overall percentage of instruction that is provided by teachers who are teaching outside the subject area for which they were professionally trained [i.e., overall # of courses taught by such instructors “divided by” school’s total # of courses] . . .  and the percentage disaggregated according to these departments:  (a) religion, (b) English, (c) mathematics, and (d) science [Concerning ‘support staff’]  
29. any significant work‐related challenges faced by support staff within the most recent three‐year period
30. (a) # of support staff   (b) support staff’s years of service at the school [rendered as a table with categories that include 1 to 3 years, 4 to 6 years, 7 to 10 years, 11 to 20 years, +20 years]
31. the retention rate of support staff (i.e., current year compared to three years ago)
32. whether, in the hiring of support staff—including athletic coaches, these individuals receive an orientation to the school’s mission and to the intended outcomes for students that the school holds
33. (a) whether the formal evaluation of the support staff (i.e., non‐instructional personnel) by the administration is an annual event;  (b) the kind(s) of formal evaluation that the administration uses to evaluate support staff
34. the perception of support staff concerning the degree of significance of their work in the overall accomplishment of the school’s mission [Support staff perceive that, in relation to the
accomplishment of the school’s mission, their work has significance: to a high degree, to moderate degree, to minimal degree.] [Concerning ‘the organization of the school’]
35. the perception of the School regarding how widespread is the practice of accountability on the part of administration and teachers [The School perceives that the practice of accountability among administrators and teachers throughout the school is: widespread, moderately extensive, minimally extensive.]
36. (a) the nature of the current School schedule (i.e., the configuration of the schedule of classes—whether periodic, exclusively block, or modified block—including whether the classes rotate within the schedule); (b) the number of consecutive years that the School has used this schedule; and (c) the perception of faculty concerning the degree to which the current School schedule of classes is conducive to optimum time‐on‐learning [The perception that the current schedule promotes such: to a high degree, to moderate degree, to minimal degree.]
37. the faculty’s perception of the quality of the content and forms of communication that the
administration uses with them [Faculty perceive that the content and forms of the administration’s communications with them are: highly effective, moderately effective, minimally effective.]
38. the major publications linking the School to the home (hard copy and electronic copy)
39. the School’s perception of the degree of efficacy of the student information system (SIS) in use (Here, ‘SIS’ is understood to contain students’ personal information, their course schedules, their grades, their attendance, and their Christian service record.) [The SIS is perceived by the School to be effective: to a high degree, to a moderate degree, to minimal degree.]
40. the perception of  parents concerning the degree of efficacy of school communications with them  [Parents perceive that the content and forms of the school’s communications with them are: highly effective, moderately effective, minimally effective.]
41. the perception of the School regarding how well overall the school is organized and run—from governance to administration to classroom to home—toward promoting the optimum human and Christian development of students [The School perceives that the quality of its organization and operation is: high, moderate, low.]