One Superintendent’s Take on School District Planning

When I interviewed for my current position as the superintendent in Northport-East Northport in the fall of 2023, I scoured the website for information on the district’s Strategic Plan. What I found was a site dedicated to a Strategic Plan that was adopted in 2017. The site had some of the goals that were developed and approved and links to Board presentations that led to the plan’s adoption.

The Mission, Vision and Board Beliefs remained in various printed materials since its adoption, and the mission did largely take root as a driver of the district’s belief system. However, there were no subsequent presentations or updates that I could find, nor were there established benchmarks or agreed upon monitoring systems in place. The district did not set annual goals and the schools, while identifying broad annual goals, had no consistent expectations related to school improvement plans.

This phenomenon is not in any way uncommon in districts and schools across the country. Districts and schools traditionally have invested energy in developing a Strategic Plan (often five years in length), created lengthy documents with a large number of ambitious goals, patted themselves on the back, and five years later, frantically embarked upon a scavenger hunt to obtain evidence that they did anything that they said that they were going to do.

My Board communicated discomfort with lack of evidence of to support student growth during my onboarding process. It actually established a committee to develop a data dashboard prior to my arrival, which was adopted in the spring of 2024 and will almost certainly be revised as our district continues to build out its Profile of a Graduate.

A Move to Action

Fullan (2012) cautions, “Beware of Fat Plans.” Reeves (2009) states, “The size and the prettiness of the plan is inversely related to the quality of action and the impact on student learning” (p. 81). It was important for me to be cognizant of this philosophy as we moved forward. As early as 2004, Schmoker made the case that Professional Learning Communities were the key to overcome the flaws of traditional strategic planning. 

Upon my arrival, I established an approach to creating a coherent system in the district that focused heavily on professional learning and building a collaborative culture with three entities: the Board, First Team (my instructional administrators) and teachers.

Board

The focus of our first Board Retreat in July of 2024 was Future-Focused Learning. Ray McNulty of the Successful Practices Network, co-author of America’s Next Dream (2026) facilitated this retreat. One actionable outcome was establishing Future-Focused Board Priorities.

The focus of our second Board Retreat in July of 2025 was the Professional Learning Communities Model and was facilitated by Jason Andrews, a Solution Tree consultant and practicing superintendent in the State of New York. By the end of this retreat, the Board refined its priorities and also created specific district goals for the 2025-26 school year.

The focus of our most recent July 2026 Board Retreat was the development of a Strategic Framework, again facilitated by McNulty. The recently approved Framework followed an intense year-long community engagement effort called COMPASS (see below). I applaud the Board for its work in this area. I truly believe that it did an outstanding job encapsulating and honoring the ongoing work of our educators, the history and traditions of the district and incorporating community feedback.

McNulty set the stage by introducing the tension among the three forces that impact school districts: The Weight of the Past, The Push of the Present, and the Pull of the Future. He stressed the importance of placing greater priority on the Pull of the Future over the other two, something that is often a challenge for school districts. He also emphasized that in a VUCA World (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous), it is important to be clear about where one is going but flexible on how to get there.

Northport-East Northport Strategic Framework


First Team

All of our administrative meetings are professional learning workshops designed to build leadership and support our organizational goals. We began our learning with First Team by establishing a common understanding of what we mean by Future-Focused Learning. We then moved into establishing an organizational definition of innovation and studying the underlying principles of innovation theory. We adopted the District Management Group’s definition of innovation: “Achievement of pattern-breaking performance improvement that can be scaled and sustained.”

Next, we introduced change management strategies and principles, based largely on the work of Dr. Michael Fullan, and delved into the nuts and bolts of school improvement planning and how we were going to organize our work in Northport-East Northport, which is through implementation of the Professional Learning Communities Model (DuFour, et. al., 2016). Throughout, we worked to build our internal capacity to function effectively as a true team, which included studying Lencioni’s The Five Dysfunctions of a Team (2002).

Our district joined the state’s Solution Tree Network, and, at this point, nearly all of our administrators have attended formal training and participated in webinars to increase understanding of PLC principles. Brian Stack is our district PLC coach, and a primary focus this year will be to expand and cultivate greater leadership at the teacher level.

One of the early outcomes of the work of First Team was the Student-Centered Success Framework, which was developed to create a visual that portrayed the roles of every member of the organization that kept learners at the center of all decisions.

Northport-East Northport Student-Centered Success Framework

This year, the focus of our administrator professional learning work will be Coherence (Fullan and Quinn, 2016). According to Fullan and Quinn (2016), coherence is not structure, alignment or strategy, but rather “a shared depth of understanding about the purpose and nature of the work.” (p. 1) Fullan and Quinn (2016) identify four “right drivers” for schools, districts and systems: Focusing Direction, Cultivating Collaborative Cultures, Deepening Learning and Securing Accountability. The purpose of utilizing Coherence as the anchor resource for the team this year is to build off of the work that has gotten us to this point and bring the Framework to life with intentionality.

Teachers

Simultaneously, we gradually introduced PLC principles to our teachers. During the 2024-25 school year, we utilized contractually agreed upon time, that had not been used intentionally or consistently to encourage teacher collaboration. We started by introducing teacher choice in a pseudo action research model—a baby step, but a necessary one.

During the second half of the year, we started to introduce SMART Goals and “PLC Lite.” The elementary school teachers were used to a common planning period in their schedule, which accelerated their progress through effectively utilizing time that reflected true PLC dialogue, and the high school had a professional period per contract. Like Mondays, this was under and inconsistently utilized. But our high school and district office administration began to gradually increase expectations for use of this time that more closely resembled PLC principles. The quagmire is our middle schools. Outside of Mondays, there is no collaboration time built in to their day.

The district administration will present a recommendation to the Board for a revised middle school schedule that includes dedicated time for team collaboration, but it will come at a cost. Until we have more precise information, we cannot assume that this will become a reality.

We were intentional about identifying keynote speakers for our opening Superintendent Conference Days. In 2024, Dr. Bill Daggett, Founder and Executive Chair of the Successful Practices Network, delivered a keynote address on Future-Focused Learning. In 2025, Eric Sheninger, Founder and CEO of Aspire Change EDU, delivered a keynote address on Personalized Learning. This fall, Stack presented to teachers by grade level, and Luis Cruz, from Solution Tree, will address our teachers to help deepen our collective understanding of Professional Learning Communities.

The COMPASS Community Engagement Process

The Northport-East Northport district has been experiencing years of declining enrollment and financial pressures due to legal settlement with the local power plant that resulted in a shift of the local tax burden to our homeowners. A social media warrior began to have undue influence on community perceptions of the district, and I felt that it was important to attempt to bring the community together and establish a path forward that identified where we wanted to go and built trust, as opposed to continuing to re-litigate the past. The Board supported the recommendation, and the district partnered with Discovery Works to support the work.

COMPASS was driven by a Facilitating Team of community members, which delivered a report to the Board on June 18, 2026. The Facilitating Team largely created and led the effort, with some direction and support from the administration. COMPASS featured student, parent and staff Focus Groups, two online community surveys, five in-person community engagement sessions and an online engagement that synthesized and summarized the five in-person sessions.

The Facilitating Team relayed 12 community priorities to the Board that became the foundation of the District’s Strategic Framework:

1)    Keep students at the core of every long-rang decision.

2)    Protect the breadth of opportunity that makes Northport-East Northport strong.

3)    Make future-focused learning practical and connected to life-readiness.

4)    Continuously evaluate technology to strengthen learning without replacing human connection.

5)    Be careful with class cuts that affect class size, support services or student access.

6)    Use clear evidence before changing programs, courses or staffing.

7)    If reductions are necessary, start with the least disruptive options.

8)    Plan facilities around students, safety and optimal use of space.

9)    Build community understanding before pursuing major revenue or funding changes.

10)  Continue improving how decisions are explained to the community.

11)  Use this report as a living guide during the long-range planning process.

12)  Continue community engagement as a part of how decisions are made.

Ensure a Common Organizational Definition of Key Terms

I am a big believer in establishing common definitions for key organizational concepts. Without that, people will rely on their personal understanding or experience. Not necessarily wrong or bad, a system cannot have 100 or more different interpretations of the things that they believe are most important to their success.

During my personal journey to deepen my understanding of what schools can do to support Future-Focused Learning, I have been fortunate to experience a range of ideas from a number of thought leaders, from Dr. Bill Daggett, Michael Horn, Mike Maddock, Michael Tuschman, and others. I synthesized what I consider to be the key components of Future-Focused Learning into a model that can be made accessible to teachers into seven constructs: Life Readiness, Skills-Focused, Teacher Collaboration, Personalized Learning, Equity, Innovation and Interdisciplinary Learning.

Seven Constructs of Future-Focused Learning


(Moyer, 2025)

I provided an example of how Northport-East Northport adopted a common definition of Innovation. It is obvious that we embrace PLCs as our vehicle to support Teacher Collaboration. We operationalize Life Readiness through our Profile of a Graduate. Another example of our attempt to create clarity for each of the components of this model is Personalized Learning.

Northport-East Northport has adopted Sheninger’s Model (2021), which defines High Agency Personalized Learning as a combination of student choice, voice, path, place and pace.



Summary

In summary, I suggest that those who are about to embark on creating or revising a district plan consider the following:

  • Keep it succinct.
  • Utilize an outside facilitator. The superintendent should avoid being perceived as superseding the authority of the Board or imposing a personal agenda onto the community above and beyond the scope of his/her professional responsibility.
  • Focus on building a culture of collaboration and team learning at all levels of the organization. My recommendation is to embrace the Professional Learning Communities Model as the vehicle for this.
  • Commit to a Future-Focused approach however you decide to define it. Fullan talks about “The Moral Imperative.” I believe that we have a moral imperative to prepare students for their futures, not our past.
  • Avoid language that connotes previous and/or prevailing understanding of what a traditional strategic plan looks(ed) like. Create a guiding framework that establishes where you want to go but is flexible on how you get there.
  • Ensure that a defined, comprehensive program of community engagement precedes any formal adoption of a Strategic Framework. The Board of Education needs this to publicly support future administrative recommendations. However, do not be surprised if participation in the process is not at the level hoped for. People tend not to engage unless or until they have a personal issue that affects them directly.
  • Utilize visuals to represent important concepts, deepen collective understanding and promote consistent communication.
  • Ensure a collective understanding of the priorities identified in the plan.

References

Dalton, R. and McNulty, R. (2026). America’s Next Dream. Fort Worth, TX: Game

Changer Publishing.

Discovery Works Collaborative. www.discoveryworkscollaborative.com.

District Management Group. www.dmgroupk12.com.

DuFour, R., et. al. (2016). Learning by Doing: A Handbook for Professional Learning

Communities at Work (3rd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Fullan, M. (2011). Change Leader. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. and Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Lencioni, P. (2002). The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Northport-East Northport Unified Free School District. www.northport.k12.ny.us.

Reeves, D. (2009). Leading Change in Your School. Alexandria, VA: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Schmoker, M. (February, 2004). “The Tipping Point: From Feckless Reform to Substantive

Instructional Improvement.” Phi Delta Kappan (Vol. 85, No. 6, pp. 424-432).

Sheninger, E. (2021). Disruptive Thinking in Our Classrooms. Chicago, IL: ConnectEDD.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Not Sure Where to Start? When in Doubt, Consider Learning Targets

The More Things Change . . .

Seven Helpful Constructs for Building a Coherent Future-Focused School System