Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Superintendent Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bend‑LaPine board directs staff to rewrite superintendent evaluation, weighing 360 review and clearer timelines
Summary
At a March work session, the Bend‑LaPine school board asked staff to revise the superintendent evaluation policy to align with the contract, clarify executive limitations versus organizational goals, adopt measurable metrics (e.g., third‑grade reading, eighth‑grade math) and consider a 360 review every 3–5 years.
Dr. Burke opened the March work session by saying the meeting would focus on "initiatives and review of the superintendent evaluation policy and procedures," and asked the board to review the policy and suggest changes.
The board spent most of the session examining how the current policy, modeled on the Carver governance approach, maps to practice. Mary Pollson, introduced as acting chief of staff, clarified that the policy "is based on Carver model" and noted the policy allows adding evaluation elements; she also corrected a remark with a dry joke: "Just to correct the record, this is not my first board meeting." Board members agreed the policy language needs cleanup so it aligns with what the contract requires and with how the district currently reports outcomes.
Why it matters: the evaluation sets expectations for the superintendent, informs contract language and shapes what the public and staff see as district priorities. Board members repeatedly focused on two tensions: whether the evaluation should measure compliance with executive limitations (ELs) or evaluate achievement of organizational goals, and how detailed the evaluation should be without becoming an unworkable matrix of hundreds of submetrics.
Key points from the discussion
- Evaluation structure: Board members coalesced around a three‑part approach: (1) EL compliance (treated as whether ELs were violated), (2) organizational goals assessed by specific outcome measures and organizational accomplishments, and (3) a narrative section on the superintendent’s leadership and advocacy. Directors asked staff to make those components explicit in the rewritten policy.
- Metrics and data sources: Staff described available measures including state summative tests (OSAS) and interim internal assessments. Directors said third‑grade reading and eighth‑grade math should remain primary evidence points but debated whether the board should use cohort tracking or year‑to‑year benchmarks; staff noted each approach has tradeoffs for trend analysis and comparability.
- Scope and simplicity: Members cited a Denver district example where hundreds of submetrics made the process unwieldy. Several directors urged focusing on a manageable set of metrics rather than monitoring each sentence of every EL, which can balloon the review into 200+ data points.
- 360 review: Some board members expressed support for adding a 360 review to assess leadership, with discussion focused on who runs it (internal HR vs. an outside contractor), cost, and cadence. The board discussed a proposed cadence of once every three to five years rather than annually, and noted a third‑party or neutral administrator is typically preferable to preserve objectivity.
- Contract and calendar alignment: Directors flagged mismatches between the policy and the superintendent’s contract (the contract requires goals be set by Sept. 1). The group asked staff to propose a clearer annual timeline — suggested checkpoints included a midyear update and a final evaluation period in late winter/early spring (February–May) so goals and expectations are available to leaders before budget season.
- Executive session and process mechanics: The board discussed how much of the evaluation deliberation must happen in executive session under applicable rules and whether separate sessions (potentially multiple) are needed to address ELs, organizational goals, and narrative feedback without compromising confidentiality.
What the board directed staff to do
Board members concluded the session by giving staff and leadership "marching orders" to redraft the evaluation policy: align contract dates/language with the policy, define the three proposed evaluation components and the evidence needed for each, present a proposed calendar for goal‑setting and final review, and provide options and cost estimates for a 360 review. The board asked staff to return the draft for review and to prepare a short discussion at the next meeting about what the board means by a "strong academic foundation."
The board also confirmed its next regular meeting is scheduled for April 14. The work session adjourned without any formal motions or votes on the evaluation policy.
