Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Superintendent Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant walks trustees through Balanced Governance superintendent evaluation cycle
Summary
Dr. Alsbury reviewed the Balanced Governance superintendent evaluation cycle with trustees, emphasizing a growth-focused, board-wide process tied to district goals; trustees approved moving forward with the evaluation process (7–0).
Dr. Alsbury, the district’s Balanced Governance consultant, briefed the Clark County School District Board of Trustees on Sept. 3 on the superintendent evaluation process the board will use to assess and support Superintendent Joan Ebert.
The consultant described a multi-step cycle designed to be growth-focused, tied to board and district goals, and to consolidate 11 trustees’ input into a single evaluation report. Following the presentation trustees voted 7–0 to accept the Balanced Governance superintendent evaluation process.
Key elements of the process Dr. Alsbury said the process centers on a small number of focused performance targets (around five) and a limited set of actionable recommendations (roughly six to eight) to help the superintendent prioritize growth. He emphasized that the approach is not a “one-size-fits-all” checklist but is intended to align the superintendent’s evaluation with the board’s strategic goals.
“The superintendent's evaluation…is focused on superintendent growth or continual learning,” Dr. Alsbury said. He reviewed a cycle that begins with board and superintendent agreement on goals and indicators, includes a midyear check-in, and concludes in the fall following the school year with an aggregated board evaluation that synthesizes individual trustees’ input.
How the board will rate and provide recommendations Trustees will receive an online evaluation tool in the fall after the school year ends; the consultant will collect written recommendations for growth from trustees, anonymize and consolidate those recommendations, and present a synthesized set of priorities for the board and superintendent. The consultant explained that numerical ratings will use consistent rubric language (for example, highly effective, effective, developing, ineffective) and that the board will adopt cutoffs for translating average numerical scores into those categories before the evaluation begins.
Timing Because CCSD is developing a new strategic plan that will be completed in spring 2026, Dr. Alsbury said this year’s evaluation will necessarily be built from the superintendent’s stated goals for 2025–26 rather than a finalized strategic plan. Trustees and the superintendent agreed the evaluation timeline will include a midyear check-in and a final evaluation in the fall after required data becomes available.
Ending Trustees voted to accept the evaluation process as presented; the board and superintendent will proceed to define the specific goals and performance indicators for 2025–26 per the described cycle.
