Board debates guardrails, timeline as CPS begins new strategic‑plan process

Cincinnati Public Schools board members on Oct. 20 spent an extended session clarifying how the district will balance existing strategic-plan guardrails with a new strategic planning process the administration plans to start this winter.

The board’s discussion focused on whether to continue reporting the previously adopted guardrails, how the superintendents recently approved five evaluation goals relate to the expiring strategic plan, and the timeline for procuring a facilitator and completing a new plan.

Superintendent Murphy told the board she will proceed “at the pleasure of the board” but said the administration and treasurer had already sketched a timeline to begin vendor procurement in October–November, select a vendor in December, and run community engagement and listening sessions in January–February. Chief Burkhart outlined a reverse‑engineered timeline: issue the RFP in October–November, evaluate proposals and select a vendor in December, onboard the vendor and run stakeholder sessions in January–February, conduct strategy workshops in March–May, and present a draft strategic plan timed to align with the June budget approval cycle.

Board members split on details. Several members including Vice President Bolton, Board member Crossett and Board member Weinberg urged keeping the existing guardrails and continuing monthly or quarterly reports so the public can track progress; others emphasized the need for the superintendent and treasurer to align the strategic plan with fiscal planning. Some board members urged a shorter planning horizon (three years) tied to the states three-year financial forecast; others said a four-year plan matches a high‑school cohort and gives time to implement changes. Multiple members said the new plan must include authentic community engagement beyond established school advisory councils (LSDMCs), asking for broader outreach to parent groups, foundations and partners.

The board did not take a formal vote to adopt a single schedule or a new set of guardrails. Instead it gave direction: the superintendent should (1) continue reporting on the current guardrails while the administration develops a new plan, (2) work with the treasurer to align the strategic plan with budget development, and (3) return to the board with a clear crosswalk showing overlaps between the five superintendent goals the board recently approved and the existing strategic-plan goals and guardrails. Members also asked administration to present a short summary showing where the district has and has not met previously published strategic-plan targets.

Administration said it will issue the vendor bid this fall, include expectations for the vendor to demonstrate past work and to help identify national best practices that match priorities raised during listening sessions, and aim to produce a final, board-ready draft aligned to the 2026–27 budget by June. Several board members asked that any vendor contract be short-term (vendor to facilitate the planning process only) and that internal staff be considered for facilitation roles or stipends to reduce outside costs.

The board scheduled further review: Superintendent Murphy will provide a document that maps the five approved evaluation goals to the existing strategic-plan guardrails and interim targets. Board members asked that the superintendents presentation to the Committee of the Whole include that overlap and specific expectations for what the administration will monitor in the coming year.