Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Superintendent Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appoquinimink board debates measurement and evidence in proposed superintendent evaluation
Summary
At an April 29 workshop the Appoquinimink School District board reviewed a new superintendent evaluation draft, arguing over a 1–5 rating scale, the need for measurable evidence tied to curriculum and student outcomes, and agreed to circulate edits and meet in executive session May 13 to finalize metrics.
The Appoquinimink School District board met in workshop on April 29 to review a proposed superintendent evaluation form and set a timeline for finalizing metrics.
Board member Richard, who presented the draft, said the superintendent is the district’s chief executive and that the document is intended to capture what is going well and where improvement is needed. ‘‘Our superintendent is our chief executive officer and tasked with ultimate responsibility for everything that happens in the district,’’ Richard said, arguing the board must have a clear way to assess that work.
The draft uses an odd-numbered Likert scale (1–5) and would require written comments when a reviewer gives a score of 3 or lower. Richard said the written comments are essential so board members must ‘‘defend your work’’ when assigning lower ratings.
Other board members pushed back on reliance on subjective judgment and asked for clearer, measurable evidence tied to specific statements in the form. One member asked for concrete examples — such as AP-course offerings, curriculum review cycles or training logs — that could anchor a rating. ‘‘If he can’t be measured, then why is he being held accountable?’’ another member asked, summarizing the concern about subjectivity in evaluations.
Superintendent Matt and administrative staff described existing tools that could supply evidence. Matt noted administrators already are evaluated under PCEL standards with rubrics and said goal-setting forms and professional-development calendars could provide documentation to support ratings. The board and staff discussed the district’s curriculum review calendar — which members said had previously been an 11-year cycle and was funded to an eight-year cycle — and noted the industry standard of about six years as a reference point.
Members also discussed student proficiency and achievement as the measurable outcome tied to other categories such as curriculum and instruction. Several members said publicly available state data and the district’s own numbers should inform judgments about student progress and therefore about superintendent performance.
On alignment with the district strategic plan, members agreed that where a category directly matches a strategic-plan goal it should be denoted, but the presenter said the evaluation should not be limited only to strategic-plan items.
For next steps the board set a short timeline: members are to send specific edits and comments by Sunday at noon; Richard will incorporate changes and circulate a revised draft by Monday evening; and the board will meet in executive session on May 13 at 5:30 p.m. to review metrics and revised language, with district administrators asked to prepare options in advance. The presenter said the board might adopt the form at that meeting or allow one more round of edits with adoption in June.
The workshop ended with the chair saying the discussion will continue at the scheduled executive session.
