Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Performance Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waunakee board reviews CESA 6 district-administrator evaluation system
Summary
On Aug. 11 the Waunakee School District board heard a presentation from Tim, a representative of CESA 6, on a proposed district administrator performance-evaluation system and a related central-office platform.
On Aug. 11 the Waunakee School District board heard a presentation from Tim, a representative of Cooperative Educational Service Agency (CESA) 6, on a proposed district administrator performance-evaluation system and a related central-office platform. Dr. Kelsey Brown, the district administrator, introduced the item and said the district is piloting a central-office tool called COPES.
The presentation described two linked products: COPES, “Central Office Performance Evaluation System,” and a district-administrator tool modeled on existing teacher and school-administrator rubrics. Tim told the board the district-administrator rubric uses six standards and aligned proficiency levels; board members would receive digital access to artifacts through Frontline so they can review evidence and progress year-round.
Why it matters: board members said they want consistent language and measurable artifacts to improve feedback to the district administrator and to align expectations across the district. Tim said the system is intended to make feedback “consistent” across evaluators, and to allow the administrator to upload a portfolio of evidence during the year for board review.
Key points from the presentation and discussion: Tim explained that the central-office and district-administrator tools “create some of that universal language” and noted the evaluation starts with a self-assessment and annual goal setting. He recommended a narrow set of annual goals: “we recommend 2 to 3 personal goals” to keep focus and enable meaningful progress checks. Board members pressed on how personalized district- or district-administrator goals would be handled; Tim said the DAPE focuses on the administrator’s goals and practice while allowing alignment with district priorities.
The Frontline platform will host a documentation log or “portfolio” of artifacts, Tim said, and each board member will have access. CESA 6 offers an optional paid service in which a consultant synthesizes board feedback and presents a draft summative evaluation; Tim said the cost for that service would be $1,045 plus mileage.
Timing and next steps: the board agreed to complete Dr. Brown’s current, year‑one evaluation using the district’s historical instrument and to compare results with materials on the CESA 6 system. Rebecca (district staff) will distribute the existing instrument and the board requested results in time to review before the September meeting. Several members said the board should place a full discussion of adopting the CESA 6 tool on the September agenda so new members can compare the two systems.
Quotes: Tim: “COPES stands for Central Office Performance Evaluation System.” Tim: “we recommend 2 to 3 personal goals to the district administrator.”
The board did not adopt the CESA 6 system at the meeting; members directed staff to circulate materials and scheduled a substantive comparison at the September board meeting.
