Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Strategic Plan topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board reviews draft strategic plan; staff to revise for August vote

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Board members and plan authors discussed an eight‑page draft strategic plan and one‑page overview, asked for clarifications on leadership, measures and timeline, and directed staff to prepare a final draft for the board to consider in August.

The West Lafayette Community School Corporation Board of Trustees reviewed a draft strategic plan that administrators say reflects input from the district’s community and staff.

The draft, presented by Mr. Jones, summarizes work from nearly 2,000 survey responses, in‑person school meetings, and staff workshops. "We have collected nearly 2,000 survey responses," Mr. Jones said, adding the plan is intended to be an eight‑page document with a one‑page overview for broader distribution.

Board members asked for more specificity on several items, including who will lead building committees, how the plan will use quantitative and anecdotal data to drive a communications campaign, and how the district will measure academic rigor versus student workload. Dr. Greiner said the plan’s listed leaders are intended as conveners rather than exclusive participants and that additional data sources — including state transfer reports and alumni anecdotes — could feed the work.

Members also asked staff to avoid duplicating work already done by the Education Foundation, clarify that "expand capacity" means "service capacity" rather than increasing seats, and add language that spells out board governance and annual progress reporting. Mr. Jones said some initiatives are phased for years 1–2 and others for years 3–5 to manage staff load.

Board members asked for clearer progress measures in areas where the draft used the phrasing "continue," with several members recommending more aspirational language or explicit evaluation points. Dr. Greiner and staff agreed to revise language to better distinguish continuous improvement from maintaining existing programs.

The board did not vote on the draft. Dr. Greiner said administration and Mr. Jones will incorporate board feedback and present a final version with a recommendation to the board in August.