Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administration Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter offers lower-cost evaluation options; board says new administrator-evaluation tool will cover all administrators
Summary
A resident urged the board to choose a lower-cost administrator-evaluation program instead of a $12,000 subscription; the board responded that the proposed tool is for all administrators, creates iterative evaluator/employee processes, and is an improvement on past practice.
A member of the public raised concerns about the district’s plan to spend about $12,000 on an administrator-evaluation subscription and asked the board to consider lower-cost alternatives.
At the start of the meeting a speaker identified as Trapp told the board she had received district mail about kindergarten registration and raised multiple topics during public comment, including a critique of an administrator-evaluation tool listed in the board packet as costing roughly $12,000. Trapp told the board she had researched alternatives, mentioned National Association of Elementary School Principals–approved 10-step programs described as paper/pencil/computer options and another program she described as costing about $4,900 per year; she said the lower-cost programs offered training, parent-engagement and evidence-based domains that would hold administrators accountable while costing less than the subscription in the packet.
During the information-items portion of the meeting a board member (addressing a question from “Miss Strauss” referenced in the transcript) clarified that the administrator-evaluation tool in the packet is not just for the superintendent but for all administrators. A different board member said the tool “is a tool for the board to manage the superintendent” and called it better than systems used in the board’s recent past. Another board member said the subscription would not be a top candidate for cuts in the budget and described the product as more streamlined and organized than prior tools. Board members said the proposed system standardizes the standards the board uses and creates an iterative process between evaluators and employees that should ease administrative workload for staff collecting evaluation data.
The transcript does not show a formal vote on the subscription at this meeting; the evaluation tool remained an information item with board members’ comments, and staff said the tool would apply districtwide to administrators. The public comment and the board discussion together indicate there is public interest in the tool’s cost and whether lower-priced alternatives would meet the board’s goals for accountability and ease of use.
