Board reviews revised strategic plan framework; members request clarifications on links, surveys and testing timing

District staff presented a revised, condensed version of the Salt Lake City School District's strategic plan at the Aug. 5 board meeting and answered questions about implementation measures, data collection and timelines.

Why it matters: The strategic plan sets district priorities and measurable outcomes used to guide budgeting, accountability and school-level planning.

Presentation overview District leaders said the board had already seen earlier drafts and that the current presentation focused on clarifying measurable outcomes and answering questions raised at prior meetings. Staff said the pillars in the plan date to 2023 and the version before the board is a shortened version of the prior document.

Board questions and staff responses - Document access: Several board members reported broken or restricted links for the plan materials. Staff agreed to send an attachment and fix permissions so both board members and the public can review the full document before a vote. - Survey methodology: Board members asked about the stakeholder survey's response rates and whether responses capture respondent type (family, staff, community). Staff explained that secure distribution options can track responses by school and role for district stakeholders while preserving confidentiality; anonymous surveys provide different tradeoffs and can be subject to multiple responses. - Data and assessments: Board members asked about ECAP and WIDA testing support; staff said ECAP had been revised for teachers and that IT and assessment staff will follow up on WIDA testing support concerns. - Testing schedules: Members raised that different schools administer state and college-readiness tests on different schedules, which can affect student stamina and the comparability of results. Staff said they would examine scheduling and consider whether timing created inequitable testing conditions across schools.

Next steps Staff asked for additional review and recommended bringing the plan back at a future meeting after link permissions and requested clarifications are posted. The board agreed to additional review and follow-up in a subcommittee setting.