Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board considers streamlining superintendent evaluation; attorneys say instrument must align with Virginia code
Summary
Board members discussed simplifying the superintendent evaluation tool and adjusting contract language on timing; legal counsel reminded the board that state code sets evaluation requirements and any local instrument must align with those guidelines.
Board members discussed streamlining the superintendent evaluation process on May 19 and asked the superintendent and attorney to help align any changes with state law and the division’s contract language.
Board member Miss Cunha outlined a shift toward formative, year-round evaluation — goal-setting, midyear review and a summative year-end assessment — and proposed reducing the number of performance indicators under the existing standards from nine per standard to two or three to make the instrument more focused and usable. “The recommendation really is that the board decide to choose 2 or 3 performance indicators for each of those standards because 9 performance indicators is a bit over the top,” she said.
The board’s attorney and administration reminded members that Virginia law requires an annual evaluation consistent with Board of Education guidelines. The transcript cites “Virginia code 22.1-60.1” and an additional citation read aloud as “Virginia code 22.1 dash 2 53 13 5,” and staff said the board can use its own instrument only if it remains based on those guidelines and code sections.
Members discussed changing the contract’s timing language so the evaluation referenced the calendar year rather than the fiscal year, and several members supported a summer work session — with superintendent input — to streamline the tool and consider weighting different performance standards. Superintendent Dr. Nichols confirmed administrative staff would work with Miss Cunha on a concise sample and reiterated that the superintendent must be part of any agreed instrument.
No formal change to the evaluation instrument or the contract was adopted; board members agreed to take up a streamlined proposal over the summer and to include the item in a future work session.
