Strategic Plan Oversight Committee: Minutes 8/13/09
Members Present: Blaine Cox, Jennifer Lyon, Tim Spinney, Julie Reece, Jocelyn O’Quinn, Jennifer Rief, Arul Mahadevan, Laura Rogers, Matt VanLedtge, Deb Hastings, Stephanie Pines, Paula Roy, Andy Smith, Dave Nichols, Judy GeorgeNot Present: Howard Colter, David Hawley, Tracy Schroeder, Dave Montgomery, Lisa Allison, John Moore -
Discussion and nomination of a chair introduced by Jocelyn O’Quinn Clarification of roles and responsibilities. After discussion with Howard and Jennifer, it was determined that a chair is necessary to put together the agenda for each meeting, contact members and run meetings. Jocelyn O’Quinn has volunteered to serve as a co-chair. She suggested Paula Roy consider acting as co-chair. Andy Smith moved, Blaine Cox seconded and a unanimous vote of affirmation followed.
-
Review of the strategic planning process (handout). Several members have experience establishing Strat Plans in other arenas (business, higher ed., other districts). Some templates and planning tools are available from those individuals (Andy, Stephanie). The committee members provided feedback on the Gilford Plan and those of other schools. Discussion included things that seemed to be lacking (timetables, costs, specific goals and measurable outcomes) and the merits of specific subcommittees/subtopics.
-
Discussion of goals for ultimate outcomes: Need for data analysis, examination of Best Practices, reviewing excellent programs in other schools and districts, ultimately improving the ORCSD individual schools and the district as a whole.
-
Discussion of process and facilitator v. no facilitator. Merits of a facilitator- more “polished” final product, dedicated individual to generate reports, run focus groups, ensure objectivity, etc.. Negative- cost. There is only a small amount of budgeted funding for this process. In general, committee members feel they could do much/most of the work without outside help if they could get past a starting point, i.e. identify the subcommittees and divide tasks. There are different ways to approach this- establish the subcommittees based on known perceptions or gather data and then identify areas of need that determine the subcommittees (top down/bottom up).
-
The group discussed working in two different ways- some would begin with subcommittees all members agreed should be included as part of the final strategic plan. A small number could continue to gather data and identify other areas of concern that weren’t included in those initial subgroups. Ultimately, the group came to consensus that we would move forward with working groups, recognizing that we could add/propose additional subgroups if our data analysis merited them, or combine two or more if there seemed to be a great deal of overlap in those areas. There are seven working groups identified as worthy subgroups; “curriculum”, “human resources”, “student learning”, “facilities”, “community”, “finance” and “technology”.
-
The group discussed what data we have available and what would need to be gathered.
-
Andy and Stephanie will get together in order to help move the processes for individual working groups and the overall process forward.
-
Members will come back with an idea of which subcommittee we want to be to part of.
-
Laura, Blaine and Jocelyn will begin gathering data.
-
One of the major goals of the committee will be to include as wide a variety of voices as possible in focus groups and other input opportunities. They agreed not to depend on volunteers, since that tends to result in people with a specific agenda or opinion coming forward. A broad representation of stakeholders (including those underrepresented in past research) will be contacted and asked to participate in focus groups and other input sessions.
-
Thursday August 27th will be the next meeting in the high school conference room at 7 pm.
-
Jennifer R. will take care of sharing follow-up information with the town’s Friday Update.