At the November 20, 2025 Board of Education meeting, the Board publicly identified one of its 2025–26 initiatives as:
“Start writing the school district’s first five-year strategic plan.”
That statement establishes two things.
First, strategic planning was already recognized as a Board-directed priority.
Second, the work was expected to begin in November 2025.
Yet in January 2026, the Board finalized an agreement with an out-of-state consulting firm based in New Jersey to lead that same effort.
According to the proposal, the consulting process will take six to seven months. (Yes the jokes write themselves)
Leading edge contract available for review here, showing the $16,750 proposal.
Placed on a calendar, the implications are straightforward:
Superintendent start date: July 1, 2025
Consultant approved: Late January 2026
Strategic plan completion: July–August 2026
By the time a formal five-year plan exists, the Superintendent will be one year into a three-year contract.
That raises a fundamental governance question.
If strategic direction is supposed to guide leadership, what has been guiding the district for the first year of this tenure?
The Superintendent’s contract makes clear that goals are set by the Board and that performance is evaluated against those goals. Those goals, however, have not been publicly published. What has been referenced, but not formally adopted or documented, are the Board’s 2025–26 initiatives, which already include strategic planning, organizational clarity, communication, and policy alignment.
So what is the district operating under today?
Is there an interim or “bridge” vision in place until the consultant completes its work?
If so, where is it documented and approved?
If not, how are leadership, budget, staffing, and program decisions being anchored during this first year?
The sequence itself is the issue.
The Board hired a superintendent in July, reasonably assuming that leadership vision and district priorities were vetted during the hiring process and aligned with the Board’s expectations. The superintendent took office, the school year began, and operations continued. In November, the Board publicly stated that creating a five-year strategic plan was a priority. Then, in January, the Board outsourced that responsibility to an external firm.
When a Board hires leadership in July, identifies strategic planning as a priority in November, and then outsources that same function in January, it sends a confusing signal about who is responsible for setting the district’s course.
This is not about personalities or qualifications. It is about governance and clarity of authority.
Public education is not an abstract enterprise. Its mission is well understood and enduring: student success, academic excellence, and responsible stewardship of public resources. Strategic planning should sharpen that mission, not delay it.
If a district requires outside facilitation to define long-term direction, that work should inform leadership selection. If leadership is hired to set and execute direction, external visioning should be the exception, not the foundation.
At minimum, the community deserves transparency on what vision is currently guiding the district and why the district’s first five-year strategic plan will not exist until most of the Superintendent’s initial year has already passed.
Clear direction should lead leadership.
Here, it appears to be arriving after the fact.