Bend‑LaPine board holds governance workshop, focuses on measurable ends and data use

Marc Marcus LeGrande, chair of the Bend‑LaPine Administrative School District No. 1 Board of Directors, opened the Jan. 28 work session by calling the meeting to order and introducing board members and staff. “Thank you. Good evening. I will now call the January 28th meeting of the Ben La Pine, school board of directors to order,” he said.

The board spent the session in a facilitated governance review led by Dr. Lisa Burke, who framed the meeting as reflection and professional development. “I am sitting in a space today of facilitator for all of you,” Burke told members as she reviewed materials from the Oregon School Boards Association and the National School Boards Association and walked directors through a rapid survey and small‑group exercises.

Why it matters: board practice and how a school board frames its goals determine what the district measures and how it holds district staff accountable. Members said they want clearer, measurable “board ends” — the outcomes the board directs the district to achieve — and better access to data so they can track progress toward those ends.

Discussion centered on four recurring priorities Burke introduced as the district’s organizational goals: a strong academic core, passion/purpose/plan, wellness/inclusion/belonging, and operational systems that support instruction. Directors agreed the district has an equity stance anchored in community work and described several current strategic initiatives tied to those goals.

Board members repeatedly raised the need to narrow and target measures so the board can monitor progress. Director Amy Tatum and others said current board ends are not phrased with targets and therefore do not make it straightforward to judge progress. Board members discussed distinguishing measures (what is measured), benchmarks or targets (how much improvement is expected), and the timing of indicators (some are lagging, like graduation rates; others provide more immediate feedback).

Directors identified accountability and use of data, and budget/financial transparency as the top areas for improvement. Small groups spent part of the meeting listing tools and actions to address those needs: monthly financial updates and earlier distribution of budget documents; disaggregated graduation and program outcome data by school and program (for example career and technical education, AP); visual, board‑level data displays; and school‑level YouthTruth survey results tied to school improvement plans.

Participants also discussed standards‑based instruction and grading as part of measuring student learning. Superintendent Steven Cook and other administrators described ongoing district efforts around standards‑based practices and strategic planning; directors said the board should align its ends to the superintendent’s strategic plan when that plan is finalized.

The group used the session to generate individual commitments and next steps rather than adopting formal motions. Activities included pairing directors with staff to populate a shared spreadsheet identifying information and supports needed for improvement. The facilitator set an expectation of “non‑closure,” signaling the work would continue over subsequent meetings.

In closing remarks, directors and staff committed to follow‑up actions including requests for school‑level disaggregated data, clearer targets for board ends once the strategic plan is complete, and a focused work‑session schedule to address priority items. Dr. Burke said the materials and collaborative notes from the session could serve as a working document moving forward.

The meeting ended with brief director comments and announcements; no formal votes were taken during the workshop.