Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Superintendent Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waukegan CUSD 60 holds workshop to tighten superintendent evaluation, goal-setting timeline
Summary
Board members and consultant Dr. Mark Friedman reviewed standards-based superintendent evaluation models, discussed clearer timelines for goal-setting and midyear reviews, and agreed to reestablish an August–June cycle tied to contract requirements.
Board President Rodriguez convened a July 29 special workshop of the Waukegan CUSD 60 Board of Education to review processes and tools for evaluating the superintendent and for setting annual goals.
The board heard a presentation from Dr. Mark Friedman, a former superintendent and current consultant with BWP and Associates, who outlined Illinois standards-based evaluation frameworks and recommended concentrating on a limited number of performance goals so the superintendent and staff can both deliver and remain visible in schools. "Trust and communication governs all," Friedman said, urging clear, two‑way communication and periodic progress reports to avoid end‑of‑year surprises.
Nut graf: The workshop focused on tightening the district’s evaluation calendar and aligning goals to measurable, performance‑oriented indicators without relying solely on single test scores. Board members and Superintendent Teresa Placentia discussed restoring a predictable annual cycle so goals, midyear reviews and any KPI‑based bonuses can be set and reviewed on time.
Friedman reviewed six broad standards commonly used in Illinois superintendent evaluations — mission/vision, teaching and learning, organization/finance/facilities, ethics, social/political environment, and policy/governance — and recommended boards limit annual superintendent goals to about four to five priorities. He said the standards provide a structure for both setting objectives and for a summative review at year’s end.
Superintendent Teresa Placentia told the board she and her team are working with the Illinois School Board (ISB) guidance on how the board prefers information packaged and said, "once I know what the target is, then we can hit the target." Placentia recommended a midyear review and regular updates tied to each goal so the board can monitor progress rather than being surprised at year end.
Board members pressed for clarity on how student achievement should be reflected in goals. Friedman and Placentia cautioned against tying the superintendent’s evaluation purely to single numeric gains for individual students, noting test types and reporting windows change year to year. Instead, they suggested framing achievement goals as expected growth benchmarks (for example, a stated proportion of students demonstrating an expected year’s growth) and tracking subgroup progress alongside districtwide measures.
Several members said the district’s prior schedule for goal setting and evaluation had slipped; the group agreed to pursue an August–June timeline that aligns with contract notice dates and KPI reporting where possible. Placentia and the board president will draft a short calendar for goal development, midyear review and final evaluation and circulate it to members for feedback.
The board did not adopt any new evaluation instrument at the workshop. Members asked the administration and legal counsel to confirm contract deadlines and to return draft timelines and proposed goal language for the board’s August planning meetings.
Ending: Board President Rodriguez said the board will schedule follow‑up meetings in August to finalize goals and timelines. The board adjourned the workshop after approving procedural motions to commence and to adjourn later in the evening.
