Coffee County board to align director evaluation schedule, remove teacher/supervisor ratings
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
At a Coffee County board work session members reviewed and approved edits to the director-of-schools evaluation instrument to match a TSBA contract, move evaluation distribution earlier, and eliminate teacher and supervisor input from the director evaluation process.
Coffee County board members meeting in a work session reviewed a revised director-of-schools evaluation instrument and agreed to edits designed to align the instrument with an existing contract and district policies.
Melissa (Speaker 4), who presented the changes, said the evaluation form available to the board listed July for the final evaluation meeting but the district—ontract with TSBA requires the board evaluation to occur in February. "According to the signed contract that we have with mister Hargrove, February is when it's supposed to take place," Melissa said, arguing the instrument's dates must be changed so distribution and review happen earlier in the year.
Board members discussed a timeline Melissa proposed tied to policy 5.803 and policy 1.103: the director would receive the self-evaluation form in January, the board's evaluation materials would be distributed in February, the board self-evaluation would be released in March, and the board would meet to discuss results in April. The changes to the instrument include moving the distribution of materials from June to March and delivering a copy of the written evaluation to the director two weeks before the April meeting.
The board also debated whether teachers and supervisors should provide evaluations of the director. Speaker 2 said a recommendation from Tammy was that "you don't do that," and added, "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 their supervisor." Several participants said they believed most districts do not collect teacher or supervisor evaluations of the director, and Melissa confirmed TSBA's standard materials typically go to the director and the board.
Members reviewed the instrument's content areas (board relationships; district staff and personnel relationships; community relationships; strategic planning; district management and operations; facilities; finance; human resources; integrity, fairness and ethics; student performance; student achievement data; student growth; and the metric renamed from 'ready graduate' to 'college and career ready data'). The group specifically discussed whether average composite ACT scores should be categorized under "student growth" or "proficiency." Several members said ACT scores better reflect proficiency; Melissa said she would mark the instrument to reflect that placement.
Melissa said TSBA will send the evaluation form and that using TSBA for administration will avoid the roughly $400–$500 cost the district paid the prior year to use SurveyMonkey for confidential teacher and administrator surveys. Melissa said she will upload the revised instrument into the packet for the full board meeting on Monday and that a special called meeting in January could be used to begin the evaluation process earlier in the year.
The session ended with members thanking Melissa for preparing the edits and agreeing to forward the revised instrument to the full board for approval.