Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Superintendent Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cincinnati board debates scoring, stretch targets in superintendent evaluation
Summary
Board members questioned proposed scoring weights and stretch targets for Superintendent Murphy’s evaluation, sparring over whether academic goals are high enough and whether midyear goal changes are appropriate.
The Cincinnati Public Schools Board of Education spent more than an hour on Feb. 10 debating how to score and set targets for Superintendent Laura Murphy’s evaluation, concentrating on how much weight to give student outcomes and whether recently raised “stretch” targets are achievable.
Board members objected to both the draft scoring rubric and some proposed numerical goals, with several saying the district should set higher expectations for student achievement rather than what one member called targets “in the bottom half” of comparable districts. Superintendent Murphy and board member Benjamin Crossett presented a proposed spreadsheet that would allocate 60% of the evaluation to measurable student-outcome goals, 10% to scheduled check-ins and 30% to five state standards.
The dispute centered on how to translate progress toward an outcome goal into a numeric score. Crossett walked the board through a scoring guide that maps percentages of goal attainment onto a 1–5 (and a bonus 6) scale. Board members asked whether the baseline numbers Murphy used (for example, third-grade reading levels) were the correct starting point: Murphy said the “base” figures reflect the district’s previously approved goals and guardrails, while her proposed “stretch” targets were raised in response to board member feedback and an email from board member Lindy.
Several board members said the timing complicated the exercise. The district is well into the school year and state testing occurs in April, narrowing the window for demonstrating progress. Murphy told the board that she adjusted targets after receiving email feedback and cautioned that those stretches were added with fewer than 30 school days remaining before state tests.
Board members proposed several changes: moving the formal reset of some goals until just after the state report card is released; using the board’s strategic plan as the foundation for targets; and adopting a transparent method so the board and superintendent have a consistent scoring approach in future years. Crossett and Board Member Craig volunteered to produce a refined rubric to bring back to the full board at the next meeting.
The discussion did not produce a final, board-wide vote on a revised evaluation instrument. Members agreed to continue the conversation in committee and to work toward a single, board-approved score methodology for the year.
Murphy told the board she would incorporate feedback and work with committee members on a single draft to present for a vote at a subsequent meeting.
The board’s next step is for members Crossett and Craig to coordinate with the superintendent and bring a revised scoring sheet and proposed meeting process back to the full board for approval.
