Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Superintendent Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Superintendent Hiltz’s multi‑rater results show mixed perceptions; board to review evaluation instrument with consultant
Summary
On Oct. 9 the District 49 board reviewed multi‑rater survey results and objective metrics for Superintendent Peter Hiltz, which showed mixed perceptual scores and declines on school‑improvement measures used in his evaluation.
Board members reviewed Superintendent Peter Hiltz’s multi‑rater/performance metrics on Oct. 9 and discussed next steps for the superintendent evaluation process.
Hiltz presented aggregated results from multi‑rater surveys (cabinet, principals, directors and support staff) and a set of objective metrics tied to school performance frameworks. He said perceptual scores reflected a drop in the workforce category and modest declines in management and leadership measures, while results‑focused items rated higher. Hiltz noted a substantial drop in objective improvement metrics: fewer operated and charter schools improved their state performance ratings year over year than the district’s evaluation rubric requires to “meet expectations.”
Board members questioned presentation format and comparability year over year. Several directors suggested changes to the instrument and to the process for translating multi‑rater responses into the board’s formal supervisory evaluation. The board agreed that a small group should consult with the neutral consultant who runs the board evaluation process, Paul Anderson (Employers Council), to consider whether the current instrument and scoring still meet the board’s needs.
The board recorded consensus to have board members further explore the evaluation tool with the consultant and return with recommendations; the administration said that the evaluation timeline remains tied to the board’s annual calendar and that the board will complete the superintendent evaluation before the contract‑renewal consideration date.
Hiltz said he would analyze comments from the staff survey and pursue focused feedback sessions to better understand the workforce‑survey decline. The board did not take formal action beyond agreeing to exploratory meetings with the consultant.
