Board reviews draft strategic plan, plans public review and dashboard; discusses metrics and student voices

At the Feb. 27 meeting the North Santiam SD 29J board held an extended work session on the draft 2025 2030 strategic plan presented by staff.

Presenters (introduced at the start of the session as Laura and Alicia) asked board members to review the draft as a public-facing document and recommended publishing a polished version for public comment. "Werecommended that everybody read through the whole thing," one presenter said while outlining next steps for public review and noting in-document edits and conceptual graphics to be finalized by the communications specialist.

Board members worked page by page, suggesting copy edits, graphic changes and clarifications. They discussed whether to list mascots for all schools (to reflect community identity), how to describe campuses accurately (one board member asked that campus building counts be corrected), and whether to include point-in-time enrollment figures or multi-year averages. On enrollment, staff recommended a rounded, non-dated phrasing: the district has averaged approximately 2,100 students in recent years.

The group debated program listings and recognizability; one board member asked that the plan explicitly mention advanced placement (AP) courses so readers can immediately identify academic rigor, and presenters agreed to add AP alongside locally named programs such as Willamette Promise/Early College and College Now.

A central part of the session focused on metrics and a proposed public dashboard. Board members and staff discussed keeping some baseline data available at launch, piloting an internal dashboard to refine measures, and the cadence of updates (some metrics will be annual or semiannual rather than monthly). Concerns included the risk of overemphasizing single metrics (for example, retention rates can rise or fall for reasons unrelated to plan progress) and the need to avoid moving goalposts frequently.

The presenters described the plan as built from extensive community engagement (roughly 300 interviews and outreach events) and distilled into five strategic themes, with values summarized as CARE (Citizenship, Accountability, Relationships, Excellence).

Board members agreed to post a polished draft for public comment and discussed a 30-day comment window timed to allow the board to review feedback at a future meeting (staff suggested aiming for an April board meeting to consider approval, with May as a fallback). Staff also proposed a recurring "student voices" agenda item at school visits to give students regular, structured opportunities to speak directly to the board; the idea received positive preliminary support but will be refined.

Presenters and the board agreed that public feedback should be qualitative and focused on whether the plan is headed in the right direction rather than inviting page-level wordsmithing. Communications staff will prepare the public-facing version and a short survey to capture respondents' perspective and self-identified stakeholder category (families, staff, business/community). The board then moved toward adjournment; no public commenters were registered and the meeting ended at 7:29 p.m.