Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Superintendent Evaluation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Forest Grove board narrows focus for superintendent evaluation, asks for clear evidence cadence

Forest Grove School District 15 Board of Directors · September 25, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a Sept. 24 work session, the Forest Grove School District 15 board discussed 3–4 evaluation standards for first-year Superintendent Dr. West, agreed on a plan to bring evidence regularly to the boardroom, and asked staff to return formal documents at the October meeting for action.

The Forest Grove School District 15 board used a Sept. 24 work session to shape how it will evaluate first‑year Superintendent Dr. West, agreeing to focus the evaluation on a small set of standards and to require regular, board-accessible evidence tied to each standard.

Dr. West told the board she wanted the evaluation to be “specific, actionable, and meaningful,” and proposed co-creating two to four goals with performance indicators drawn from the OSBA evaluation handbook. She said evidence will be brought into the boardroom on a regular cadence — monthly reports and a more comprehensive midyear check-in — so board members can see how progress ties to each standard.

Board discussion centered on whether to adopt three standards to allow deeper focus on instruction or keep four to explicitly include communication and community engagement. Several board members argued community engagement is already captured in the district’s climate and culture surveys; others emphasized that bringing evidence into the boardroom would make those links explicit. One member summarized the choice as a trade-off between depth and breadth.

The board discussed practicalities of the evaluation process, including using a digital binder or shared drive to compile artifacts, and asked for rubrics that differentiate between ‘developing,’ ‘effective’ and ‘accomplished’ so members can identify the extra evidence needed to move a rating. Dr. West said she will present the compiled evidence package to the board on a recurring basis and that the evaluation documents will return at the first October meeting for formal action.

The next step is for staff to finalize the rubric language, list of acceptable artifacts and an evidence‑management plan so the board can adopt a final evaluation instrument at the October meeting.