Kenosha School District board reviews self-assessment, names culture and community engagement as priorities
Loading...
Summary
At a special workshop, the Kenosha School District board heard consultant Cheryl Stinsky review annual self-assessment results; members flagged declines in perceptions of board culture, trust and financial transparency and agreed to gather goal proposals ahead of an April vote.
The Kenosha School District Board held a special meeting to review its annual board self-assessment and begin setting goals for the coming year, hearing a presentation from Cheryl Stinsky, a consultant with the Wisconsin Association of School Boards.
Stinsky described the assessment as a planning tool rather than an evaluation, urging the board to use the compiled responses to identify strengths and address areas of disagreement. “This is not an evaluation, but a planning tool,” she told the board, walking members through survey categories including data-driven decision making, board operations, culture, planning, budgeting, district operations, community engagement, policy and vision.
Her report showed mixed results: some areas improved since last year while others declined or displayed significant disagreement among members. Stinsky noted the board’s data-driven decision-making score and listed several red-flag items for follow-up, including whether all students can access advanced coursework and whether the curriculum development process ensures culturally relevant learning for all students.
Board members responded with a sustained discussion about how to interpret the results and how to act on them. One board member who identified themself as a returning member said the goals and the process are useful but asked whether the board’s action steps actually align with the stated goals. A second member urged the board to pair outreach with concrete follow-up, saying community events can feel “a little bit hollow” if the district does not show how feedback shapes policy.
Several members raised concerns about internal board dynamics. One committee member described past incidents—motions that were reassigned and communication lapses—that, in their view, eroded trust among colleagues. “Stolen motions and not being told about certain agreements… It’s hard to trust after blatant disrespect,” the member said, calling for candid discussion and suggested offline or facilitated conversations to air and repair grievances.
Stinsky recommended structured conversation and team-development work to address those trust and communication gaps. Board members discussed options such as facilitated summits or team-building gatherings held in open session to comply with open meetings law while creating space for honest dialogue.
Finances and public understanding also drew attention. Stinsky said stakeholders had been surprised to learn that voucher funding comes from the district budget and that it had grown dramatically in recent years; members tied that information gap to declines in perceived fiscal stewardship, urging clearer public communication about the district’s financial picture.
As a procedural next step, Stinsky asked members to submit goal suggestions by email or to complete a one-page “exit ticket” distributed with meeting materials. She said she would compile ideas and return with recommended priorities for the board to consider and vote on at an April meeting. The meeting ended after a motion to adjourn was made and seconded.
The session consisted primarily of a consultant-led review of the self-assessment and a board-led conversation about priorities, with no formal policy actions taken. The board’s immediate follow-up steps are to collect suggested goals and present a formal proposal for adoption at the next regular meeting.
