Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Strategic Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Manatee County board narrows strategic plan language and debates KPIs for public plan
Summary
At a June 23 workshop, district staff presented a near‑final portrait of a graduate and two purpose‑statement options; the board favored option 1 with formatting edits and directed staff to keep KPI targets flexible and set annually rather than locking numbers into the public strategic plan.
Chapman, the district strategic‑plan lead, presented the board with an updated "portrait of a graduate" and two options for a single purpose statement during a June 23 workshop. The board discussed wording for the "awareness" competency — which, in the draft, referenced "personal and civic responsibility, patriotism, and good character" — and generally endorsed the direction while suggesting minor edits.
Board members emphasized keeping the public‑facing strategic plan concise and avoiding year‑by‑year KPI numbers in the plan itself. "Those KPI numbers might change every year," one board member said during discussion, urging that the instructional team provide annual KPI targets tied to the benchmarks instead of fixing percentages in the five‑year plan. Staff confirmed KPI metrics are being developed for each benchmark and will be presented to the board at the appropriate times, including before the superintendent evaluation.
The meeting turned to how to present district values. Several members suggested listing core values (integrity, excellence, professionalism, accountability, respect and service) either as a short 2–3 line paragraph or moved into the "we are committed to" bullets so the portrait remains uncluttered. Chapman told the board the draft is intentionally concise and that staff will incorporate the board's suggested edits and return with a revised layout.
Board members also debated whether to show specific KPI percentages in the public document or to reserve numeric targets for annual implementation plans. "If we put a 3‑year target and we crush year 1, do we just leave it there?" one member asked, arguing the board should see annual KPI targets when they meet to evaluate the superintendent.
Staff said the public plan will remain high level and that the instructional team will publish annual KPI targets tied to each benchmark so the board can evaluate progress. No formal votes were taken at the workshop; staff will return with a revised draft and a potential final plan at a later meeting.
The next procedural step is a follow‑up workshop the district has scheduled if needed on July 14 and possible board approval on July 21 depending on the edits and final layout.
