Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board receives training on superintendent evaluation tool tied to MCL 380.1249b; student growth counts for 20% of final rating
Summary
An attorney for a firm that works with school districts reviewed a locally developed superintendent evaluation rubric, explained statutory training and rater‑reliability requirements under MCL 380.1249b, and described changes to rating categories and the required midyear progress report; student growth remains 20% of the overall evaluation.
L'Anse Creuse Public Schools trustees received training on Jan. 27 about the district's superintendent evaluation process, a tool the attorney said was developed locally by practicing school law counsel and partner districts. The presenter told the board that Michigan law (MCL 380.1249[b]) requires training for evaluators and observers and that the training must be provided by someone with expertise in the tool.
Why it matters: The board evaluates Superintendent Keith Howell; the tool and the training affect how the board documents goals, conducts a midyear progress report and computes an overall rating that now weights evaluation evidence at 80% and student growth at 20%.
What the training covered
- Statutory requirement: The presenter cited MCL 380.1249b and said, “a school district shall ensure that training is provided to all evaluators and observers,” adding that the board, as the superintendent's evaluator, is included in that requirement.
- Ratings and math: The most recent amendments to the law reduced statewide required reporting categories from four to three. The local tool retains an “exemplary” (formerly “highly effective”) band in addition to effective/developing/needing support; the presenter explained exemplary and effective are treated equivalently for state reporting but retained locally as a growth target. Student growth is measured as an aggregate across the district and counts for 20% of the final evaluation; the evaluation rubric or domains account for the remaining 80%.
- Midyear progress report and appeals: The law requires a midyear progress report that must include written goals and a plan for meeting them; the presenter noted the statute also requires an appeals process for superintendents and that the contract should include such language going forward.
- Tool structure: The local rubric contains six domains: visionary leadership; policy and governance; instructional leadership; communication and community relations; organizational management; and professionalism/ethics. Each domain lists performance indicators and behavioral examples to aid calibration and rater reliability exercises.
Board and superintendent context
Superintendent Keith Howell, who started Oct. 1, told the board the training would help him and trustees align on the tool ahead of goal‑setting. The presenter recommended trustees set goals and plan a midyear check in—typically in February or March—so the district can meet the June 30 reporting timeline. The presenter also said that reliability training should include calibration exercises so board members apply the rubric consistently.
What trustees will do next
Board members agreed to take the training as presented and to schedule goal‑setting and midyear review meetings. The district will post required assurances and training documentation on the district website, as described by the presenter.
