Board refines superintendent evaluation draft, seeks staff input and tighter policy‑review workflow
Summary
Board members pared jargon from a proposed superintendent evaluation form, agreed student academic progress should be the most heavily weighted standard, and asked the superintendent and staff to provide evidence and recommended performance indicators; the board also discussed a policy‑review workflow to bring outdated policies up to date online.
The New Kent County School Board spent an extended portion of the meeting revising a proposed superintendent summative evaluation and discussing a process to modernize and publish board policies.
A draft evaluation organized around eight performance standards was presented and the board focused on making the indicators clearer and more actionable. Members objected to technical or academic phrasing — notably an indicator that used the phrase “research‑based analytical techniques” — and recommended editing it to read more simply: gather relevant data and use it to make informed decisions. Speaker 3 said the board should tie whatever metrics it chooses to the division’s current strategic plan so future boards cannot alter evaluation expectations without amending the plan.
The board also debated weighting the standards. Citing the Code of Virginia, members agreed student academic progress (Standard 8) must be a significant component and proposed increasing its weight relative to others; one example discussed was shifting some weight from Standard 6 to instructional leadership so academic progress carries the greatest weight in the final numeric score.
Members asked the superintendent and staff to identify what evidence they would supply for each indicator and to redline the draft with practical, implementable performance indicators. Speaker 1 said staff would map evidence to the indicators and return a proposed, consolidated form. Separately, the board reviewed a policy‑review workflow: administration reported sections A–C of the policy index have been reviewed and the division is working to upload revised language and review dates into the BoardDocs system; members asked for a clearer timeline for posting approved changes and suggested a standing agenda item to track progress.
Board members set the next regular meeting for Dec. 2 and asked staff to return drafts and implementation evidence before then where possible.
