Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Strategic Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Perrysburg board hears contrasting strategic‑planning approaches; members press for broader community and staff input
Summary
Consultants from Impact Group and the Cambridge model presented competing strategic‑planning approaches at a Perrysburg Exempted Village Schools work session. Board members pressed on outreach to underrepresented residents, staff involvement and cost; the board will review proposals and check references before deciding.
Perrysburg Exempted Village Schools board members spent much of a morning work session weighing two different approaches to a districtwide strategic plan, pressing consultants on how they would include underrepresented community voices, ensure staff buy‑in and track progress.
The Impact Group, represented by founder Tom Speaks and consultant Doreen Osmond, outlined a phased engagement that emphasizes many targeted touch points — 10–12 focus groups, student‑specific sessions, staff and parent surveys, and interviews with community leaders — followed by an executive summary and iterative drafting of goals and action steps. "The one, clearly, [is] who is doing what, when, and how is it measurable," Tom Speaks said, describing what he called the three essentials of an effective plan: measurable ownership, genuine community involvement and energized staff.
Doreen Osmond said the firm typically recommends a five‑ to six‑month timeline, with deliverables that include a goals‑and‑objectives document, an action‑step version that assigns leaders and timelines, and a poster or one‑pager for community visibility. She described outreach tactics to reach people who do not normally engage with schools — targeted recruitment through principals, partner organizations, postcards with QR codes and in‑person visits to existing community meetings.
Board member Denise asked directly how the firm would make sure "underrepresented voices are included." Osmond replied that the whiteboard session and leadership meetings would be used to identify populations to recruit, and that the firm would work with principals, the district’s communications and parent‑mentor networks and community organizations to recruit a representative cross‑section of residents and staff.
Several directors raised concerns about how much staff would be involved in drafting the plan. One board member argued for strong building‑level leadership participation so that staff feel ownership; another said the Cambridge approach — which the superintendent described as more prescriptive about progress monitoring and accountability — offers built‑in check‑ins that can improve follow‑through.
The superintendent told the board he had received both proposals and that Cambridge’s fee was described in his summary as roughly $30,000 plus expenses; the amount attributed in the meeting to Impact Group was unclear and will be verified in the written proposal. Board members agreed to contact references for both firms, with standardized questions, so they could compare past outcomes and how each firm involved staff and community stakeholders.
The board settled on a procedural next step: review the written proposals and references, discuss priorities at the Aug. 5 work session and invite Cambridge back for follow‑up at the Sept. 2 work session. The superintendent will circulate proposals and coordinate reference checks.
At the start of the session the board moved and approved the consent agenda (agenda item 3.1) by roll call. With no further business, the chair adjourned the work session at 9:22 a.m.
