Subcommittee presents draft, temporary superintendent evaluation instrument to Duval board

A Duval County School Board subcommittee presented a draft superintendent evaluation instrument for the current year and asked the full board to consider it at a future meeting, board members said. The subcommittee described the tool as a temporary instrument to be used while the district updates its strategic plan.

The board heard that the instrument organizes performance into five categories—finance, communication, administrative leadership, operational leadership and curriculum and instruction—each weighted equally at 20 percent of the overall score. Individual indicators within each category are rated on a four-point scale from "highly effective" (4) to "unsatisfactory" (1); those scores are averaged by category and combined for an overall rating.

The subcommittee said the current evaluation language is outdated in places, that some state assessments have changed since the district’s existing instrument was written, and that several items are not readily measurable in their present form. The draft is designed to be usable immediately and later adjusted to incorporate strategic-plan targets once the board completes its plan refresh.

Board members pressed the subcommittee on process and timing. Staff confirmed the policy language will need cleanup because current board-policy timelines do not align with the superintendent’s contract. The board discussed and did not finalize a complete calendar, but members and staff agreed on a sequence: policy committee review (noted as a February policy meeting in the discussion), placing the instrument and any aligned policy on the board agenda for consideration in May, and a target for the superintendent to provide a self-evaluation document in June so board members can meet individually with the superintendent and aim for a final rating in July or August if necessary.

Members also debated whether the instrument should require narrative comments whenever a board member gives an indicator or category a rating below "effective." Several board members and legal-advice participants warned that making a written comment mandatory without policy language to enforce it could raise procedural and employment-law questions; they recommended that if the board intends to give such requirements "teeth," the requirements be incorporated into policy so an incomplete submission can be excluded from the overall tally. The subcommittee said it will add language on the instrument stating that comments supporting any rating below "effective" are required and recommended mirroring that in policy.

No formal vote was taken. The subcommittee said it will capture the edits discussed and return the instrument and aligned policy language to the policy committee and, if ready, to the board agenda for May consideration. The board also discussed standard administrative practices for distributing the superintendent’s self-evaluation notebook and for whether portions of the evaluation discussion should occur in a workshop rather than in an open board meeting; staff and the superintendent said the public release would include the overall score and associated documents once the process is complete.

Speakers identified in the meeting included Mr. Wright (subcommittee facilitator), Dr. Bernier (superintendent), Mr. Gould (policy staff), Mr. Poole (staff member handling agenda scheduling), Mr. Kagan (staff), Mr. Ray (board member), Corey (staff member), Board member Pearsley, and a speaker identified as Mr. Doug. Several unnamed board members and staff also participated in the discussion.

Clarifying details recorded during the discussion include: each of the five categories is 20 percent of the total evaluation; the rating scale converts "highly effective" to 4 and "effective" to 3 and so on; the subcommittee held three meetings beginning in January to review other districts’ instruments and to draft indicators; staff noted a policy meeting in mid-February to continue the policy cleanup and suggested bringing instrument and policy to the board agenda for consideration in May; the superintendent offered to provide a self-evaluation notebook by June 1 to allow board members time to review before July; and board legal/staff participants advised that mandatory explanatory comments for sub‑effective ratings should be codified in policy if the board wants to exclude incomplete negative evaluations.

The board left the item open for edits and scheduled follow-up: the subcommittee will finalize edits, the policy committee will address required policy language, and staff will place the instrument and policy on a future board agenda for formal consideration.