Board reviews Franklin Covey "Leader in Me" proposal, asks for clearer cost and evaluation plan

The Hernando County School Board heard a presentation on the Leader in Me program from Franklin Covey representatives and district staff, who described the program's focus on leadership, culture and academics and identified seven schools that have expressed interest in a pilot cohort.

Board members raised repeated questions about cost, funding sources and how the district would measure results if the board approves the proposal. Several trustees asked that the district return to a future workshop with a one‑year contract option, a clear budget breakdown showing which funds would pay what, and a performance evaluation plan tied to baseline data before placing the item on a vote.

Megan Schlechter, Hernando County director of federal programs, introduced Michelle Wirk, Franklin Covey managing client partner, who described the Leader in Me framework and its “measurable results assessment” (MRA) that she said would provide baseline and annual stakeholder surveys to track leadership, culture and academics. Wirk said Franklin Covey would provide coaches to help schools implement the program and that district leaders would have access to a district dashboard showing annual results across participating schools.

Board members pressed several financial details. Trustee Duvall noted that the workshop materials said “no financial impact” while later budget pages listed specific amounts not yet included in the packet; she asked for consistent, itemized budget sheets in future workshops. Trustee Johnson asked for clarity on which funding sources would be used, pointing to millage and entitlement grants as possibilities. Schlechter and Wirk said the district could use a combination of millage and federal entitlement grant funds and that sponsorship funding from the Kern Family Foundation reduced some per‑student costs.

Speakers described the sponsorship arrangement as covering a portion of per‑student membership costs (Wirk said the sponsor support translated, in one calculation, to about $50 per student). Schlechter and Wirk said sponsorship cannot cover the district’s annual membership fee, which is a recurring cost; administrators also explained annual contracts typically require board approval for each year and that the proposed implementation plan contemplates three years of work but that the board would approve each year separately.

Principals from prospective schools — Eastside Elementary, Challenger K‑8, Hernando High, Explorer K‑8, Milton, Moton and Parrot Middle — spoke in favor of the program, describing observed classroom and school culture changes where Leader in Me has been implemented elsewhere and outlining reasons they believe the framework could support student leadership, reduced disciplinary incidents and improved school climate.

Board discussion focused on three things the trustees said must be resolved before a vote: (1) a clear one‑year contract option and an explanation of whether multiyear commitments would come back to the board for approval in subsequent years; (2) a full, consistent budget showing year‑by‑year district costs and which funds pay which line items; and (3) a specific performance evaluation plan — including baseline measures, the MRA instrument and other outcome metrics such as discipline, attendance or academic growth — that the board could review by early summer after the first year of implementation.

Schlechter told the board she would return with a one‑year contract for board consideration in February or March and offered to provide sample MRA survey questions and a live demonstration of the Franklin Covey dashboard at the follow‑up workshop. Wirk said the sponsorship requirement sometimes asks for a cohort of schools and that sponsor funding is typically aimed at start‑up years rather than ongoing annual membership.

The workshop did not include a board vote. Trustees asked staff to bring a revised package to a future workshop that includes: the one‑year budget and implementation plan; the measurable results assessment instrument and baseline plans; explicit columns showing the portions paid by millage, entitlement grants, sponsor funding and any other sources; and a list of deliverables tied to each year’s expenditures.

Board members also asked district staff to make future materials easier for the public to follow, with accurate budget totals in workshop packets and an explicit plan for public updates on implementation if the board approves the program.

Although several trustees expressed support for piloting the program if the outstanding questions are answered, none of the board members made a formal motion at the workshop. The item will return to a future workshop for further review.