Putnam County district reviews survey of 4,888 stakeholders and vets draft strategic priorities

Putnam County School District staff presented results from a districtwide “data triangle” survey that included 4,888 included responses and sought board feedback on draft strategic-plan priorities during a workshop. Board members took informal preference votes on proposed priority language and staff said the plan will return to the board for approval in July for implementation in the 2026–27 school year.

The findings spelled out by the presenter showed broad participation across stakeholder groups: 1,682 elementary responses and 2,176 secondary responses were among the submissions that qualified for analysis. The district used an outside partner to analyze perceptions across four constructs — instructional support and feedback; student learning and engagement; school culture and safety; and student experience and well-being — and reported average-favorability bands the vendor classifies as potential risk (under 50%), developing/emerging (50–75%) and established practice (above 75%).

Why this matters: the survey gives the district a data-driven basis to set priorities and identify areas for further investigation. Presenter-summary slides and discussion highlighted consistent gaps between adults’ and students’ perceptions — teachers and school leaders tended to rate practices more favorably than students — and identified mental-health supports and student voice as recurring needs.

"We were very happy with that," the presenter said after noting the number of valid responses, adding that the survey is intended to prompt further investigation rather than supply immediate solutions. "This data is not going to tell us what to do. It's going to prompt us to either look at some additional things or figure out actions that will get at some of these over time," the presenter said.

The district showed progress on some multiyear metrics: staff noted college-and-career-acceleration improved in the comparison set the presenter provided, moving a component score from 46 (previously eighth of eight neighboring districts) to 66 (fourth of eight). The presenter emphasized that metrics such as college-and-career acceleration and graduation rate take sustained effort beginning years before senior year.

On school safety and engagement, presenters and board members discussed how older students' perceptions can be influenced by broader news and social media, while school leaders generally reported higher familiarity with safety measures than families or students. The vendor summary noted "students and families report a need for strong mental-health supports, belonging, fun, and engaging activities and student voice," and board discussion highlighted limits on mental-health staffing and concern about potential state funding reductions.

Board members also evaluated draft priority language in a brief workshop exercise. The presenter described a proposed plan structure — each priority paired with an insight statement and annually updated actions tracked with key performance indicators — and asked the attending board members to indicate which of two phrasing options for each theme best resonated with them using one-or-two voting cards. The transcript records discussion about phrasing (for example, whether "safe, supportive environment" or "safe, supportive classroom" more clearly communicates priorities) but does not include formal tallies of the preference cards.

Next steps: staff said communications would prepare graphics and the family and community focus group asked to meet again in June to review revised language; the presenter said the goal is to bring a final draft to the board in July for approval to guide the 2026–27 school year. The district will post the survey visuals and results on its strategic-planning webpage.

The workshop closed with thanks to staff and consultants who supported the process and a brief recess; the board will reconvene for further work as scheduled.