Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Strategic Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board presses for clearer measurement tools as district outlines strategic‑plan implementation tracker
Summary
At a July 15 meeting the board reviewed a revised strategic plan and an implementation tracker. Associate Superintendent Annalise Ruiz described quarterly progress monitoring; board members, led by Ashley Anderson, pressed staff for clearer measurement tools and asked for the missing equity audit and validated stakeholder surveys to be addressed.
Salt Lake City School District leaders presented a revised strategic plan and a separate implementation tracker to the Board of Education on July 15 and said new oversight will be led by Associate Superintendent Annalise Ruiz. Ruiz told members the tracker ties board goals to the plan’s four pillars — educational equity, student achievement, family and community partnerships, and stewardship — and that quarterly data reviews will be used to monitor progress toward measurable outcomes through 2029.
Board members welcomed the clearer format but asked for immediate clarifications about measures and tools. “This plan is pretend,” Board Member Ashley Anderson said she heard from multiple teachers who felt previous planning efforts had not driven change; she urged staff to demonstrate how the plan would be made operational and measured. Anderson and others pointed out that the equity audits referenced in earlier drafts were not in the revised document and asked what tool would replace them to measure fidelity to MTSS and other objectives.
Ruiz and other staff replied that some audits were not completed and that the district is adopting an alternate measurement tool; she said department leads and executive directors will provide the baselines and that the associate superintendent’s office will bring specific measurement tools and definitions to the board before the final reading. Staff also explained the district’s stakeholder survey practice: past contracts used face validity rather than full psychometric validation because validating tools requires additional time and cost.
Why it matters: board members asked for specific, named instruments and baselines before the plan’s third reading so they can evaluate progress, compare results year to year, and confirm that staff are aligned on implementation. Members requested more clarity on measures for multi‑tiered system of supports (MTSS) fidelity, special‑education and multilingual learner outcomes, community‑engagement metrics, and what “signature practices” and the dignity indicators mean in practice.
What’s next: staff said they will return with the requested measurement tools and a glossary of terms, provide clearer baselines for indicators such as MTSS fidelity and PBIS scores, and report back to the board on implementation timelines and resource alignment.
