Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Superintendent Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Williamston board debates new MASB-aligned superintendent evaluation, sets timeline
Summary
Board members spent the bulk of the meeting discussing how to implement the Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB) superintendent evaluation framework, weighing options on method, rubric weights and schedule and agreeing to bring filled worksheets to the Sept. 15 meeting for focused discussion.
The Williamston Community Schools Board of Education spent the majority of its meeting on the process for evaluating Superintendent Adam, discussing whether to adopt the MASB rubric as written or use a district-modified worksheet and setting a timeline to complete the review.
Board members said the district must choose between MASB’s suggested approach—each board member completes their rating privately and the board discusses differences in open session—and a more streamlined method the district has used in past years. Superintendent Adam explained he prepared a fillable worksheet to reflect MASB’s intent while matching weights used across district staff evaluations.
Board members debated several technical points: MASB’s framework reduces the student-growth weight from 40% to 20% under new state law; the district’s existing worksheet weights board goals and other domains differently (Adam said he had set board goals to 15% in a draft to match MASB but noted the district typically weighs board goals at 20% for other staff). Members discussed whether to use pure arithmetic averaging or a consensus/majority approach when ratings differ.
Board members agreed on a set of practical steps: each trustee will complete the worksheet in advance, send it to the superintendent’s office and bring a printed copy to the Sept. 15 meeting. The board asked district staff to compile discrepancies in advance so the board can spend its meeting time on items with outlying ratings. The board set internal deadlines tied to upcoming agenda and audit dates: members asked that the bulk of the evaluation be completed before the auditor’s presentation (scheduled for Nov. 7), with discussion of any audit-linked items on Nov. 17 and a final board vote planned for Dec. 8.
Several trustees emphasized the need to retain documentation of the chosen process and the completed evaluation for the district’s records and any future state review. The superintendent reminded the board the district may experiment with the MASB model this cycle and adjust weights or process later if needed.
The board did not adopt a single final rubric during the meeting but agreed on the immediate next steps: staff will circulate the MASB Excel worksheet and the district’s fillable worksheet; trustees will complete and return them before Sept. 15 so the board can concentrate discussion on discrepancies and on the audit-related components when audit data is available.
Ending: The board scheduled follow-up work between now and its Sept. 15 meeting; trustees said they expect the exercise to be iterative and to adjust the process in future years if the MASB-aligned approach proves unwieldy.
