Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Superintendent Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lakeville board sets timetable for superintendent check-ins, ties evaluation to upcoming metrics
Summary
Board members agreed to a near-term check-in and a three-part evaluation cadence for Superintendent Michael Baumann, and to incorporate district executive-dashboard metrics into a fuller year-end evaluation.
The Lakeville Area Schools Board discussed how it will evaluate Superintendent Michael Baumann and agreed on a near-term check-in plus a longer timeline to build objective metrics into the year-end evaluation.
Board members said the district’s new executive dashboard and an updated set of performance metrics should feed into superintendent evaluation, but they acknowledged that final performance targets will take weeks to set. The board agreed to use an established superintendent-evaluation template as a working baseline for an initial check-in and to collect additional, structured input from district leaders.
For an immediate process, the board reached consensus on three elements: an initial check-in to be completed in the coming weeks, a midyear follow-up, and a full evaluation in late spring/early summer. The board asked Superintendent Baumann to provide a supplemental narrative describing work completed since his appointment; board members also asked for a 360-degree-style colleague survey from the superintendent’s direct reports to provide staff perspective. The board indicated it will consider staff and community survey results and the executive-dashboard metrics when settling targets for the formal year-end evaluation.
Members discussed practical details about inputs and timing. They agreed the initial check-in can be conducted using a standard MSBA-style evaluation form to create a common baseline. For staff feedback, members suggested gathering structured input from the superintendent’s direct reports and exploring a staff-survey instrument (district-run or external) to capture broader staff experience, while noting some teacher/union surveys are not district-administered. The board emphasized that where evaluation elements require objective targets (for example, finance or assessment metrics), those targets should be set quickly and acknowledged that some instructional or student-achievement metrics will be multi-year efforts.
Board members also asked that evaluation timelines align with planning cycles so that goals for the next academic year are established well before budget and staffing decisions. Several members recommended making the evaluation process transparent to the board — sharing the evaluation instrument in advance — and using an aggregate summary (the chair or a designated board officer) to present consolidated results rather than distributing individual responses publicly.
Next steps: the board directed staff to convert the agreed evaluation template and a short 360 feedback form into online formats, to collect direct-report feedback, and to return a proposed timeline and sample instruments so the board can finalize targets within roughly 30–45 days. The board also set a procedural expectation that the chair, vice chair or designated officer will consolidate results for board review.
