Speaker 4, a school board member, presented a marked-up director-of-schools evaluation instrument and urged the board to approve changes so the timeline matches the signed contract with the director. "According to the signed contract that we have with mister Hargrove, February is when it's supposed to take place," Speaker 4 said, noting the instrument as drafted listed the annual evaluation in July.

The proposed edits shift key dates so the director would receive the self-evaluation in January, the board's evaluation materials would be distributed in February, and the board would meet to discuss results in April. Speaker 4 cited policy 5.803 and policy 1.103 as the bases for the timing. "Per policy 5.803 and the signed contract, the director must receive the self evaluation form in January," Speaker 4 said.

Speaker 2, a school board member, raised and led discussion on removing teacher and supervisor input from the director evaluation. "I kind of personally think it should be just be the board evaluating the director as the employee and not have the employees evaluate their supervisor," Speaker 2 said, and noted that an advisor (Tammy) had recommended dropping teacher/supervisor evaluations because few other boards practice that. Speaker 4 confirmed TSBA will send the director self-evaluation and the board instrument but did not include a separate teacher/supervisor evaluation in the packet the board received.

The board also reviewed substantive wording and classification in the instrument. Members debated where to place average composite ACT scores—under "student growth" or under "proficiency." Speaker 2 argued ACT averages are a proficiency measure; no formal change was adopted during the session, and members agreed to mark the item for follow-up.

Speaker 4 said TSBA had added a superintendent-evaluation option to the package for $1,500. The board discussed past use of online survey tools, with Speaker 4 recalling the board paid "400 and something dollars or 500" last year to use SurveyMonkey to collect confidential responses; removing teacher/supervisor input would likely eliminate that recurring cost. The precise past cost was described by the presenter as an estimate and was not documented in the packet.

Next steps: Speaker 4 said she would incorporate the edits into the board packet and upload the revised instrument for the full board meeting on Monday. The work session did not record a formal motion or vote on the instrument; members agreed to send the revised draft to the full board for approval and to begin the revised timeline so distribution and review can start in January.

The board adjourned with no votes taken on the revised instrument during this meeting.