Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Self Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Special School District board calls itself "high-functioning," adopts outreach goal to engage more St. Louis County residents
Summary
At a January work study, the Special School District of St. Louis County Board of Education reviewed December self-evaluation results that showed broad consensus and identified community engagement as a top area for growth, asking staff to compile a menu of outreach opportunities and proposing directors each commit to two engagements per year.
The Special School District of St. Louis County Board of Education reviewed results of its December self-evaluation during a January work study and set a goal to boost community outreach after a presenter characterized the board as a "high functioning board." Lisa Neer, director of board development for the Missouri School Boards' Association, led the session.
Neer told directors the board's responses showed strong consensus: "You are, based on these results, what I would consider a high functioning board," and she said most of the 61 scored questions reflected agreement that the board is performing well. The workshop moved from a category-by-category review of the evaluation instrument into a discussion about areas for growth, with engagement and clearer onboarding among the themes.
Board members and staff emphasized that the district defines "achievement" broadly to include student growth and whole-person development, not only state test scores. Neer said the survey tool is grounded in leadership standards and asked the board to consider how the district's unique structure (serving students across many partner districts) affects what data should be tracked and reported.
Discussion turned to practical outreach steps. Directors described existing practices (social media, public review committees, the SSD Foundation's fundraising events and advocacy breakfasts) and proposed tactics to reach community members who are not parents. Suggestions included inviting civic organizations into SSD facilities, "brownies with the board" drop-in listening sessions, visiting partner-district meetings, reviving outreach videos and a coordinated alumni-highlight campaign with district communications staff.
One director urged sustained outreach before asking voters for levies or public support: "Engaging the community before we need a levy is important," a director said, arguing outreach builds familiarity among residents who may later vote on funding measures. Staff and board members noted that outreach must be realistic given directors' time commitments.
District staff committed to assembling a list of engagement opportunities and next steps. A director asked whether the district could support convening small community events; Dr. Franklin (district staff) said some community events already occur and staff would identify appropriate opportunities and coordinate logistics.
On procedural follow-up, staff agreed to draft a written summary and circulate slides and suggested language for a measurable goal. Board members discussed a feasible cadence for director participation; the emerging consensus favored setting a modest, measurable target to start (for example, two engagement activities per director per year) and formalizing it in board materials so future boards have a clear expectation.
The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn; the packet shows the motion was made and seconded but the transcript ends before a recorded vote.
The board's action plan and staff's outreach list are expected to return to the board for a future work session or business meeting for formal adoption.
