Racine Unified governance committee agrees to pursue retreat to align strategic plan, monitoring and board oversight

Racine Unified School District’s Governance Committee on June 23, 2025 agreed to pursue a facilitated board retreat to revisit its coherent‑governance framework, refine how operational expectations (OEs) are monitored and reported, and consider aligning the district strategic plan more closely with the board’s priorities.

The committee decided by a unanimous voice straw poll to move forward with planning and asked the committee chair to contact consultant John Steech of Aspen Group for availability and cost details. Chair and staff said consultant work would include options for a retreat structure and recommendations on which district leaders should attend.

Committee members said the goal is to improve the quality and focus of information the board receives so trustees can more directly monitor student results. Members repeatedly flagged literacy and mathematics as top priorities and said existing Strategic Plan targets and some OEs do not translate cleanly into monitorable measures the board finds useful. Several trustees said past retreats had emphasized governance basics or KPIs in ways that did not produce the monitoring data they expected.

District Superintendent Soren Gajewski told the committee he supports work that clarifies priorities and helps the administration align resource allocation with the board’s top academic goals. Committee members discussed whether to revise the strategic plan first or whether revisions to OEs and monitoring could be developed in tandem; the chair will ask the consultant for a recommendation before scheduling.

The committee reviewed preliminary logistics and costs. Chair reported an initial price estimate for a facilitator‑led retreat of about $5,000 (including travel) from Aspen Group for a half‑day evening session followed by a full day. The consultant also offered a pre‑retreat board self‑assessment (48 questions) with analysis and a one‑hour Zoom debrief for about $500; several trustees expressed interest in that diagnostic, though there was not unanimous support during the meeting.

Members discussed holding the retreat at WingSpread (venue application required); staff said WingSpread sometimes covers retreat expenses if the district’s application is approved. Trustees asked staff to poll availability and to aim for a date when a substantial majority of trustees can attend; several trustees recommended a minimum attendance threshold of six to seven members.

Committee members asked that the retreat avoid repeating a governance‑101 presentation. A number of trustees said the committee’s current deficit is not interpersonal board dynamics but rather the match between monitoring reports (the OEs/results) and the district’s measurable priorities. Several trustees asked that state accountability metrics (the state report card) be considered explicitly as part of results monitoring.

Next steps assigned at the meeting: the chair will contact John Steech at Aspen Group to confirm scope, availability, and firm costs; staff will poll trustees for dates and follow up on WingSpread availability; the committee will return with more detailed proposals about retreat length, attendee list, and preparatory materials (including whether to use the consultant’s board self‑assessment).

The Governance Committee made these decisions as part of a longer agenda that also included administrative monitoring calendar updates and the annual board budget (both moved to the board consent agenda by separate motions earlier in the meeting). The meeting adjourned after the committee agreed to proceed with planning.