Support Model
Review document. How the site should be kept accurate once the
restructure is live. Companion to Proposed Changes.
The Principle
The website failed slowly, not suddenly. Nothing found in this exercise was caused by one bad
decision — it is the accumulation of pages nobody owned, documents nobody re-checked, and links
nobody clicked. A support model has to make ownership specific and review scheduled, or the site will
be back in this state within two years.
Stewardship
Every page has one named role as its steward, and stewardship is assigned by role rather than by
individual so it transfers automatically when staff change. That is already set out in the restructure
plan and covers all 82 pages. Two things make it work in practice:
- A steward can decline. If a page cannot be maintained, the right answer is to say so and have it reassigned or removed — not to leave it to rot. Standard 5.1 already says this; it needs to be said out loud at least once so people believe it.
- Nobody stewards more than they can review. The Supervisor of Special Services currently owns 20 pages and the School Counselor 11. Those are the two heaviest loads and both sections are content-rich. Worth confirming with them directly rather than assuming.
Review Cadence
| Tier | Frequency | Pages |
|---|---|---|
| Dynamic | Monthly | BOE Meetings, School News, The Weekly Paw Print, Athletics, Health Updates, Open Positions |
| Semi-static | Quarterly | Most pages — calendar, staff directory, parent resources, department pages |
| Compliance | Annually | Legal Notices, NJ School Ethics Act, Standard Operating Manual, Affirmative Action, Environmental notices |
At each review the steward confirms five things: the content is still accurate, the links still
work, there are no stale dates, the formatting still meets the standards, and the page still reads
properly on a phone.
What the Committee Does
- Keeps the stewardship list. One document, current, naming the role for every page.
- Runs an annual site-wide review to catch what the per-page reviews miss — particularly duplicate content and pages that have quietly gone dead.
- Approves new pages before they are published, against the checklist in Standard 5.3.
- Is the escalation point when a steward cannot maintain a page.
- Reports compliance to the Board annually.
A Practical Suggestion on Cadence
Quarterly review of 80 pages spread across eleven roles is roughly two pages per person per month.
That is achievable. What usually kills it is that the reviews all fall due at once and feel like a
project. Staggering them — each steward reviewing their pages in a nominated month rather than
everyone in January — turns it into a habit instead of an event.
The Recurring Problems to Watch For
Three patterns caused most of what was found in this exercise, and all three will recur without
attention:
- The PDF reflex. Uploading a document is faster than writing a page, so it happens by default. Every page that is now only an attachment started as a reasonable shortcut.
- Time-sensitive content with no expiry. A flyer for an event in October 2019 is still published. Nothing prompts anyone to remove it.
- Copies instead of links. Duplicate pages and duplicated documents both come from the same instinct — putting a copy where someone might look for it, rather than linking to the one canonical page.
What This Does Not Cover
This model assumes content maintenance by school staff inside Edlio. It does not cover platform
administration, accessibility auditing beyond the standards in this document, or the initial migration
effort to move the approved structure onto the live site. Those are separate questions and should be
costed separately.