NJSBA trainer outlines legal deadlines, evidence rules for superintendent evaluations

Charlene Peterson of the New Jersey School Boards Association told the Mount Olive Township Board of Education that the superintendent-evaluation process is a yearlong cycle governed by state statute and board rules, and she walked board members through an online tool the association provides to compile member input and produce a majority-based annual performance report.

Peterson said the evaluation "is for the board and the superintendent to work together, to be able to advance student achievement," and emphasized that the written evaluation must be completed by July 1, include areas of strength and recommended growth, and be based on district goals, superintendent responsibilities and any criteria set by the State Board of Education.

The presenter laid out a recommended calendar: the superintendent logs in first to enter goals and a self-rating, then board members submit individual ratings and comments. The NJSBA system compiles anonymous individual inputs into a single report that Peterson said is intended to show the board majority's position and to form the basis of the summary sit-down conference with the superintendent. The system waits 48 hours after a superintendent submission to notify board members, giving the superintendent a short window to revise her submission.

Peterson reviewed the evaluation tool's structure: an initial goals section and six leadership standards adapted from national standards for professional educators. Each standard is broken into indicators; board members can mark ratings, add comments, or select "not observed" when they lack direct experience. Peterson said the tool also allows the superintendent to attach evidence, such as documents or links, that board members can review while rating.

She warned that executive-session evaluative discussions require proper notice and that the final sit-down conference should include a majority of the board's total membership. Peterson also advised that board members with conflicts (for example, a relative employed by the district) consult the School Ethics Commission guidance and the board attorney, because those members should not participate in superintendent-evaluation matters.

Board members asked logistical questions about timing and use of the tool. Peterson said NJSBA's tool remains open beyond July 1 for some districts and that many superintendents keep separate midyear tracking documents to align with local calendars. She offered to resend a midyear goals/progress document that had been prepared for the district.

Peterson recommended that boards plan evaluations months in advance, hold periodic progress conversations during the year, and ensure new board members receive required training early in their terms. She said the final compiled report typically becomes the basis for a board-drafted annual performance report that both the board president and the superintendent sign.

The presentation lasted roughly a half-hour and drew questions from the superintendent and multiple board members. Peterson noted she will retire May 1 and offered follow-up support before then.

Less critical details: Peterson described how the compiled report shows how many members agreed with the superintendent's self-rating and suggested boards may prepare a draft annual performance report from the compiled inputs before a formal executive-session conference.