Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Superintendent Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates formalizing superintendent evaluation; members split on process and transparency
Summary
Committee members discussed creating a scored rubric and possible subcommittee to formalize the superintendent evaluation process; some members urged a full-committee approach while others expressed concern about politicizing the review and asked for clearer, measurable criteria.
Chariho committee members spent part of their July 15 meeting discussing whether to formalize the superintendent’s annual performance review with a scored rubric and what process should govern that work.
Member Tyler proposed forming a subcommittee to draft a scoring rubric and performance metrics tied to district goals and quantitative data. He said a rubric could make evaluation “as nonpartisan as you can get” and create a written record of goals and progress.
Several members pushed back on using a subcommittee. Jess asked that any rubric work be done by the full school committee, not relegated to a smaller group. Others voiced concern that the review process should not become a vehicle for political attacks; one member said recent meetings had been “very contentious” and expressed apprehension about changing the existing evaluation approach.
Superintendent Gina Picard noted she is evaluated annually and described the historical process the district used, which was created by a prior subcommittee; she also said previous reviews included executive-session feedback and personnel records. Picard said she welcomed constructive feedback and framed evaluation as a tool for professional growth. Several members suggested including staff and community input and ensuring the rubric includes measurable quantitative indicators such as graduation rates, AP performance and attendance.
No formal motion to change the evaluation process was made. Several members asked that the topic return as a future agenda item, with options for committee-wide deliberation.
