Bend‑LaPine board reviews new superintendent evaluation timeline that would require contract change

The Bend‑LaPine Administrative SD 1 Board of Directors on April 28 debated a proposed overhaul of the superintendent evaluation process that would shift the district to a March‑to‑March cycle and require amending the superintendent’s contract to match the new timeline.

Dr. Steven Cook, the district superintendent, told the board the packet before them included a draft board policy, a proposed timeline, an evaluation‑criteria template and a superintendent self‑assessment form. "If the board is so inclined and wants to adopt this timeline, we think this is the right timeline to be able to do that; it would require that we modify the superintendent's contract to reflect the evaluative process to align with this particular timeline," Cook said.

Why it matters: the proposed schedule is intended to make evaluation feedback and strategic priorities align with the district’s reporting windows and with evidence generated under Senate Bill 141, the state law that now requires periodic reporting on student growth and other targets. Directors pressed staff on how SB 141 evidence — which can arrive on differing schedules (graduation data often lags, cohort growth data may arrive at other times) — would feed into the evaluation. Cook said the district plans two broad updates (October and March) and a June business meeting where the board would adopt final evaluation determinations and set focus areas for the coming year.

Metrics, dashboards and evidence: several board members asked for a single, trackable set of metrics and a public‑facing dashboard tied to cohort growth data. Director Jen Lynch said she wanted «trackable data that we see that's in one place that's easy to locate, you know, not us having to go search through a bunch of strategic initiatives reports and trying to piece it together.» Cook and Deputy Superintendent Dr. Lisa Burke replied that cohort growth measures required by SB 141 will allow better longitudinal tracking but that some measures will remain moment‑in‑time; they urged the board to decide which evidence should be presented as cohort‑based trends and which as periodic snapshots.

360 feedback and self‑assessment: staff recommended a limited 360 process to inform the superintendent’s self‑evaluation — focused on board members and roughly 15 staff who work most closely with the superintendent — and suggested that aggregate 360 feedback could be referenced in the self‑assessment. Several directors asked that language about periodic 360 feedback be added to the policy so the practice is recognized, if not mandated.

Rating rubric and policy wording: the draft policy currently compresses performance determinations into a simpler meet/not‑meet approach. Several directors urged keeping a four‑level rubric (no, approaching, meeting, exceeding) to preserve a middle category for areas that need improvement without categorizing the superintendent as failing. Board members discussed how to aggregate quantitative and qualitative evidence into an overall judgment.

Timing and contract details: the group discussed exact contract windows (the draft used Feb. 1–Jan. 31; some directors preferred March 1–Feb. 28) and whether changing the evaluation period would limit the board’s ability to demand additional reports during the year. Staff emphasized the board retains agenda authority and can request extra reports or work sessions as needed.

What’s next: staff said the June board business meeting is the likely venue to finalize evaluative criteria and any contract changes, and the board would continue to refine whether the 360 feedback is codified in policy. No formal motion or vote to adopt the timeline or contract changes was recorded in this session.

Board comments and adjournment: directors closed with brief remarks, thanked staff and tech support, and Chair Marcus Lrand adjourned the session; the board’s next regular meeting is May 12.