Redford Union board hears MASB self‑assessment presentation; members agree to pursue anonymous online survey

Scott Morrell, facilitator from the Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB), led the Redford Union Schools District No. 1 board through a workshop on board self‑assessment and superintendent evaluation at the Sept. 16 board workshop.

Morrell described the MASB self‑assessment as an anonymous, research‑based instrument intended to be completed by board members and stakeholders. He said the online survey is short (roughly 10–15 minutes), covers seven governance areas (including leadership, academics, board‑superintendent relations and community engagement) and produces a color‑coded report once the board reaches six completed responses. “It’s totally anonymous,” Morrell said, adding that the results can be used to write short‑ and long‑term board goals.

Board members discussed timing and logistics. Morrell recommended quarterly check‑ins and suggested conducting the board self‑assessment before the superintendent evaluation so board self‑strengths and weaknesses would be clear ahead of scoring the superintendent. He noted the superintendent evaluation rubric contains multiple checkpoints and recommended identifying the district’s highest priorities within the instrument rather than adding many custom goals on top of it.

Board members asked detailed questions about how the superintendent’s goals are set and evaluated. Morrell said historic practice is for the superintendent to propose goals informed by administrators and classroom data and for the board to approve and, if needed, edit those goals. He described the evaluation instrument as including roughly 35 data points and said student‑growth components are accounted for within a weighted portion of the rubric (participants referenced a 20% student‑growth portion and a 15% weighting tied to specific documentation during the discussion). Morrell also noted many superintendent contracts include a 90‑day renewal/notice provision and that staffing and union notification timelines can affect budgeting and evaluation schedules.

On whether the board should proceed with the MASB assessment, members expressed general agreement to take the survey and to set a completion window; the facilitator said he has seen both 30‑ and 60‑day completion windows, and the board discussed a 60‑day target. Board members emphasized they did not want to be pressured into a vote during the workshop; Morrell confirmed the assessment can be launched without a formal motion and that the board could treat the matter as a near‑term action item. “When you score it, when you get six responses, we send an email to the superintendent and the board president saying we have six,” Morrell said.

The board also discussed timing for the superintendent evaluation. Members noted the evaluation can be based on the school year or calendar year; Morrell recommended beginning evaluation conversations earlier in the school year (January) so goals and budget priorities can be aligned before the budget cycle closes. He offered MASB follow‑up services to help the board interpret results and craft goals from the rubric.

No formal, recorded vote was taken during the workshop on launching the self‑assessment; the board approved the meeting agenda at the outset of the session. Several board members said they would review the MASB materials and the facilitator’s follow‑up email ahead of the next meeting, where the board expects to place the self‑assessment as a discussion item and set a firm completion date.