Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant briefs Rapid City Area School Board on oversight, evaluation and communication
Summary
A consultant retained as part of the district's superintendent search reviewed board responsibilities, recommended a four-step evaluation process and urged clearer communication channels and a strengths-based approach to governance.
Troy Carr, president of the Rapid City Area School District 51-4 Board of Education, called the study session to order at 5:32 p.m. and introduced David Barker, a consultant with McPherson Jacobson, to present on board–superintendent roles and expectations.
Barker told the board the governing body should set direction and leave operational details to the superintendent and staff. “Board members, basically, they’re saying we want to have light, and we’re going to leave it up to the superintendent and his or her staff to figure out how to make that happen,” Barker said.
He outlined four steps for a clearer, data-driven evaluation: establish clear objectives; define a consistent process; align measurements to the objectives; and follow up with effective communication about results. Barker emphasized that people can see the same information differently and urged the board to “start at the source” when investigating issues rather than bypassing building-level staff and leaders.
Barker also recommended a strengths-based approach to leadership and governance. He described tools he has used in the past, including the CliftonStrengths assessment, saying such tools help boards and administrators learn how teammates prefer to work and how to set useful deadlines for decision-making.
The presentation included technical problems: Barker experienced difficulty sharing slides, and the board’s technology staff, including Bobby Schaeffbauer, assisted with file transfers. Board members and staff said the presentation was part of a paid portion of the district’s superintendent evaluation work with McPherson Jacobson.
Board members asked questions about specific instruments and ongoing uses of assessment results in the superintendent evaluation. Barker said the session was an overview and offered to provide follow-up if the board wanted more in-depth work on evaluation tools and governance practices.
After the presentation, Carr thanked Barker and the board acknowledged the consultant’s role in the superintendent search and evaluation process.
