Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Strategic Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board narrows strategic‑plan language; favors clear two‑year priorities and measures
Summary
At a workshop session, the board refined draft strategic‑plan goals and pillars—asking for clearer wording on 'voice and choice', access, extracurriculars and safety—and signaled preference for a shorter, actionable two‑year implementation window with built‑in review points.
The Winston‑Salem/Forsyth County Schools board spent a central portion of its workshop revising language and priorities in a draft strategic plan, urging clearer, less jargon‑heavy wording and a practical timeline for implementation.
Dr. McMillan opened the strategic plan segment by asking the board to imagine a headline in June 2031 celebrating the district’s transformation; members suggested aspirational headlines such as rising enrollment and graduation rates and being the best place to live, learn and work. The district presenter then summarized prior engagement—about 12,000 initial voices heard during earlier phases and roughly 1,800 participants since January, including about 1,500 survey responses tied to budget and strategy priorities.
Board members pressed for specificity and simpler language. Several asked that student “voice and choice” be made more explicit—proposed alternatives included “ownership of learning” and clearer definitions that would cover curricular and co‑curricular decision making. Members recommended adding “access” (so all students can reach programs and extracurriculars) and explicitly naming safety/security as part of the support‑systems pillar.
Members also debated workforce language. One board member objected to phrasing that modifies people (for example, “high‑quality employees”) and suggested replacing it with terms focused on organizational standards or supports—“high‑performing workforce,” “workforce development,” or “quality training and standards.” The board discussed aligning staff development, recruitment and retention strategies to the district’s performance goals.
On planning horizon, several board members urged a shorter two‑year plan or a five‑year plan with a formal two‑year review and built‑in addendums, citing the district’s current exceptional circumstances and the prospect of different board composition and financial conditions in the near term. The board completed a dot‑vote exercise to indicate which prior goals should carry forward or be revised; staff will consolidate the votes and return revised wording.
Dr. McMillan and staff said the plan will include more explicit metrics and a implementation sequencing (what to do in year one versus later), and pledged to return a revised draft with suggested dollar figures and clearer labeling for the public and stakeholders. Members set a goal to have a sufficiently solid plan for school leaders by June to guide summer planning.
The board’s direction emphasizes clarity, operational coherence and measurable short‑term milestones so school leaders and the public can track progress and align departmental plans with district goals.
